Re^3: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.

It isn't, not according to the published rules of the site, How do I use the power of consideration responsibly?

That link says: "To reap a highly offensive posting."; so it comes down to how you define "highly offensive".

I personally find that monk's persistent habit of picking a "well known algorithm" (for anything) at random, and then posting a reply that makes it sound to the uninitiated (and apparently even a surprising number of those you'd think were initiates), like it has some definitive role to play in the solution to the problem; far more offensive than the occasional bad words; minor typographical and grammatical errors; forgetting to mention (or being unaware that we are "meant to") that we've asked the same question elsewhere also; and a whole bunch of other stuff people routinely get consideration happy about.

To my thinking, the biggest sin a technical forum can make is to allow grossly inaccurate replies to technical questions to stand unchallenged and unlabeled. They pollute, corrupt and call into question, the wealth of good technical information that is found here.

We are not talking about the occasional mistake or misunderstanding here; but ongoing, deliberate, knowing, consistently completely irrelevant, technically bankrupt replies wrapped over in just enough fluff to make them pass cursory inspection; posted for no other reason than to try and exploit the effectively random nature of the voting system; and to annoy. Thousands of them going back years.

There should be a solution.

My OP above wasn't a serious request for such powers -- I've consistently demonstrated that I don't want any special powers here; or anywhere -- but rather an act of frustration, with an underlying hope that some discussion might ensue, that might lead to a permanent solution to problem.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

Comment on Re^3: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
by aaron_baugher (Curate) on May 30, 2015 at 11:18 UTC

The question is: what can a society do when a member is being insistently disruptive but is intelligent and disciplined enough to do it within the rules of the society? What can you do when someone keeps violating the spirit of the law without breaking the letter of it?

It's a rare problem, because the kind of person who would do this is rarely disciplined enough to stay within the rules for long. Most trolls run roughshod over the rules and are easily dispatched by enforcing them. But the careful disruptor can't be dealt with by the rules (such as the consideration system) because he's able to stay just within them.

In a society with an absolute ruler, such as a one-owner blog, the solution is easy: the ruler invokes his executive authority and says, "The rules aren't equipped to handle this situation, so I'm making a judgment call, and you're gone." A group can do the same thing with a vote, but there doesn't seem to be much sentiment for that sort of thing here (and anonymous posting may make enforcement of such a decision impossible).

If ejecting a troublemaker of this sort is impossible (or undesirable), then the question becomes: if we can't exile him or restrict his posting, can we at least reduce the harm caused by his posts? And can this be automated so that it doesn't require a meeting of the minds every time? To protect newbies and those searching the web for solutions from his bad ideas (and bad posts in general), posts with negative reputation might not be shown to non-logged-in users. They could be replaced with a warning, as someone suggested, so that a thread doesn't become nonsensical with the other person seeming to be talking to himself.

The same functionality could be applied for new members below a certain level -- perhaps with the ability to turn off this filtering in one's preferences, similar to what we can do with deep-nested replies. So seeing "dangerous" posts would be something you'd have to switch on after you presumably knew enough not to be fooled by them.

That wouldn't save regular members the irritation and time-wasting of having to read and down-vote his posts over and over, but it would reduce the harm he's able to do to the overall reputation and value of the site, which may be as much as there is the will to do.

Aaron B.
Available for small or large Perl jobs and *nix system administration; see my home node.

[reply]


Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer
	PerlMonks