9

If I accepted answer in 100 of my questions in one day (reaching 200 rep in one day), then un-accept them all the other day, then accept them again - If I did that 50 times, would that make me Epic (troll)?

How about un-accepting highly voted answer and temporarily accepting 10+voted answer just to give someone Populist badge?

Is there any or should there be any accepting restrictions? How to deal with such potential behavior?

  • 1
    Worry about it on a case-by-case basis. Abuse of the accept feature is rare, too rare to warrant broad policy changes. – Dan Bron Feb 7 '16 at 15:46
  • The accept toggling is pretty clever. I'm surprised I didn't think of that one. (Though I'd expect chain-unaccepts to generate a flag, as they may indicate an impending rage quit.) – Jeffrey Bosboom Feb 7 '16 at 22:28
  • Are you sure that accepting-unaccepting-accepting loops give +2 rep on each step? – Konamiman Feb 8 '16 at 11:50
  • @Konamiman: +2 accept, -2 unaccept. First day +200, the other day -200, doesn't matter, the badge requires only to hit the daily rep limit. – Jan Turoň Feb 8 '16 at 12:22
  • 1
    Are we seriously considering a scenario where someone would ask 100 questions, get an answer on each one, accept/unaccept, then repeat the same con 50 times without any of those answerers crying foul? :) I guess it's possible, but it sure sounds rather unlikely. (Now counting down to someone taking this comment as a personal challenge.) – Adam Lear Feb 9 '16 at 6:52
26

Not every type of unwelcome activity is enumerated, but when you see a user flogging a feature or exploiting some use case wildly outside how it was intended to be used, it is abusive. And when that activity needlessly irritates users or becomes generally unpleasant, it's trollsome.

We do throttle a lot of these repetitive activities through the core code, but it would be somewhat onerous to try and throttle them all. So when you get into that realm of we're not going to reprogram the system just for you, you may end up with a warning or perhaps a suspension. But if we end up having to spend our time chasing and fixing this kind of nonsense, that's when users are going to look at you and say, "that's why we can't have nice things."

  • 1
    Really "it would be somewhat onerous to try and throttle them all"? Sounds like you need something like MediaWiki's pingLimiter/$wgRateLimits :) – Nemo Feb 7 '16 at 21:05
7

How to deal with such potential behavior?

As Robert already explained nicely this is indeed not accetable and abusive, so proper way of action, in my opinion, is to flag one of the abuser's posts, choose the "Other" section and exlain with details what you've seen and how the user got badges unfairly.

Moderators can't revoke badges, but they can issue official warnings, and suspend users who have been warned before.

0

There are of course restrictions here. Perhaps not automated ones directly, as I am not aware of certain internal metrics, but it would certainly raise an eyebrow somewhere.

While this may go unchecked (and I use may go lightly) at first, once discovered it would allot to voting irregularities which is a suspend-able offense and tends to carry heavy consequence.

I don't think this happens often, and there are so few epic badge holders that it is pretty easy to check once in a while, not to mention that random users are possibly browsing that list out of interest as well.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .