This guy went to every one of my questions and wrote something stupid about the null vote idea. Vote up, down and null (zero)? Is there anything I can do about it?

He also hangs out in the chat room and the users there all get together and vote each other up (they have multiple fake accounts also, so they can really boost up or down the votes on something / each other if necessary). I can't believe they are actually talking about what they do on the same site they do it.

Michael Mrozek pointed that out below... http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/transcript/message/422926#422926


You can go to any of his (moshe) questions / answers and see that (mostly) the same other people voted up everything for each other (even in the comments)

So anything that might go against their mutual admiration society voting system will also be down voted by all.

He (moshe) was the first to vote the null idea down... Vote up, down and null (zero)?

and here he says he is also the tenth... http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/transcript/89?m=423523#423523 That's multiple accounts.

They do and say some really nasty stuff about anything and everything... http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/transcript/89?m=422458#422458

They didn't have to do it in this case... The null vote idea wouldn't have had any affect on their group upvote system.

Group Upvote System? That's... whenever you post something, announce it in the chat room... http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/transcript/89?m=423507#423507 and everyone there will vote you up.

How can you talk about devious stuff you are doing on the same site you are doing it?

  • 5
    I'm sure it's entirely none of our businesses so all the more reason for me to comment at all, but a) he was mildly rebuked, b) he said he intends on removing them later, c) he thought it was a funny joke in re: your null vote suggestion, which more than one person thought was rather ridiculous and a bit of a non-issue. It's known how the StackExchange model works, and if you don't like SE functions, then don't hang out on SE sites ... But that's a discussion for the other page. Reread the first sentence of my comment again and just let it go till next week...
    – jcolebrand
    Jan 2, 2011 at 6:05
  • 5
    Who says I don't like SE? It was just a feature request. You made a couple... meta.stackoverflow.com/users/146986/drachenstern why did you do that? It's known how the StackExchange model works, and if you don't like SE functions, then don't hang out on SE sites...ok? I can't stand idiots.
    – gravityboy
    Jan 2, 2011 at 6:14
  • 16
    You're losing the high ground, gravityboy... Jan 2, 2011 at 6:19
  • 2
    @Michael Petrotta I had an idea so I submitted it. The kind of people that wouldn't like it are the same ones that only go for quick votes... not really interested in giving the best advice. The way he went around stalking all my pages proves that. He is not a professional.
    – gravityboy
    Jan 2, 2011 at 6:25
  • 7
    @gravityboy - I appreciate the suggestion, I just think that it was not thought out. The definition of the word null according to "define: null" on Google is nothing: a quantity of no importance; "it looked like nothing I had ever seen before"; "reduced to nil all the work we had done"; "we racked up a pathetic goose egg"; "it was all for naught"; "I didn't hear zilch about it". Point being, we shouldn't have to vote that we don't want to vote. It defeats the purpose of voting. I was extremely tired and I do apologize though. Cleaned up now.
    – Moshe
    Jan 2, 2011 at 16:05
  • @Moshe Ok... cool. The word itself doesn't matter, null, zero, marked as read. What's the best word? I don't care anymore. It was only a pesonal marker for people that voted. No-ones work would be reduced to nil.
    – gravityboy
    Jan 3, 2011 at 2:52
  • @jeff-atwood thanks jeff, this website you created is completely fantastic
    – gravityboy
    Jan 3, 2011 at 8:47
  • 5
    @gravityboy every one of the posts you link to have a completely different meaning than what you understand. Nowhere is Moshe talking about sock puppets, he is talking about nine votes from other people plus his own. There is also a natural trend for stuff linked in the chat to be heavily voted, because it makes many people aware of new questions. There's not much one can do about that and it's certainly not an orgaized "ring". Your original topic has been discussed, Moshe apologized for his comments series, let's just put it to rest
    – Pekka
    Jan 3, 2011 at 12:00
  • @Pekka thanks pekka, but at least one of the other nine votes was also his. I know he did the first and he said he also did the tenth. I know stuff is heavily voted from chat, they have it all planned like that (in their favor). Sock Puppets?
    – gravityboy
    Jan 3, 2011 at 12:06
  • @gravityboy Sock Puppets = duplicate accounts. Other than that, I think you are reading too much into his sentence. "The tenth is mine" = "one of the ten is mine"
    – Pekka
    Jan 3, 2011 at 12:08
  • @Pekka jeff changed the title of this to include "potential downvoting rings" that's exactly what it is. I can tell you are a good guy also.
    – gravityboy
    Jan 3, 2011 at 12:25
  • 3
    @gravity it would be a "ring" if people were voting against their natural inclination because some "cool person" on chat says so. What is actually happening is that chat serves as an amplifier because people discover stuff to vote on. I don't dispute that that creates some unfair vote accumulations sometimes, especially when there is conflict and somebody people know is drawn into it. It's a social phenomenon
    – Pekka
    Jan 3, 2011 at 12:29
  • 2
    @Pekka That's why I avoid giving my opinions of questions when I'm in chat -- I don't want my overwhelming coolness to influence too many people Jan 3, 2011 at 14:45
  • 3
    @gravityboy: I feel compelled to point out that the "nasty" comment of mine you called out is a copy of someone's question on meta. The feeling there was, what is this garbage doing on meta? I'm sorry if you felt it was offensive - that's pretty much what I felt about the original post. Jan 3, 2011 at 15:31
  • 1
    @gravity you do realize that downvotes on meta mean disagreement, right? I just saw your other question when I joined chat. I downvoted it. Nobody told me to, it's just entering chat brought it to my attention and I downvoted it because I think it's a bad idea. Like Pekka said, chat will drive a lot of people to your questions, so be prepared for disagreement (meaning downvotes if you're on meta) Jan 3, 2011 at 22:29

2 Answers 2


Don't worry about it too much. Like drachenstern said, he got chewed out a bit on chat when he did that, and he said he's going to delete them tomorrow (he had to leave)

  • 11
    +null for suggesting staying on the high ground. (ducks)
    – Tim Post
    Jan 2, 2011 at 13:36
  • 2
    -null, just to be contrarian.
    – ЯegDwight
    Jan 3, 2011 at 14:38

There's a link in the footer of every site that says "contact us", I'd use that to voice your concerns.

We're you actually down voted to the point that the vote fraud system didn't catch it and restore your reputation?

The more specific information you provide when contacting them, the more likely you are to see results.

As for the vote cartels, try to be patient with those still going through puberty, we've all been there.

  • I had an idea about the voting system to make it more fair and they downvoted it right of the map (with multiple accounts of course). And even though the question is hidden now because -12 votes, it keeps getting more down votes... probably from them.
    – gravityboy
    Jan 3, 2011 at 12:01
  • 2
    @gravityboy - That's probably because your question is on the 'most downvoted' list in the 10k tools. This means users with 10,000+ reputation see it whenever they glance at the moderation tools, some of them might be inclined to down vote. I wouldn't cry conspiracy just yet.
    – Tim Post
    Jan 3, 2011 at 13:56
  • To be honest @gravityboy, we didn't conspire against you in any way, we just felt the concept was not worth implementing. That's what we do on MSO. Someone says "hey we should do this" and then we vote for/against on the question, and we up/down vote the answers that we think make sense in light of the question. It's not quite the same as how SO is operated, but that's because this site has a different general purpose. So for it to get downvoted quickly ... sorry for that. For it to get downvoted at all - well that just means most here didn't care for the idea :S ... Better luck next time?
    – jcolebrand
    Jan 3, 2011 at 20:53
  • This is completely unfathomable to me... he says "we" (plural) don't conspire, then explains how they do it in the same paragraph. Same type of contradictory stuff in just about every comment. I looked through a lot of the stuff from the puberty cartel and found... all they care about is votes and reputation. Some even want to get / earn reputation points for chat room stuff. That's fine, you win. Even a small group of 5 people can get something squashed. But acting like you are smart and important because of it is ridiculous. ...Better luck next time.
    – gravityboy
    Jan 4, 2011 at 4:58

You must log in to answer this question.

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