You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] argosciv 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

viewing of comment histories immediately prior to voting

I'm quite confident that this metric is already in place. It wouldn't be very difficult though, if it isn't.

I may or may not write up a more detailed response regarding spam/pings/manipulation -- not firing on all cylinders at the moment.

@Crensch

0
0

[–] PeaceSeeker [S] ago 

I'm quite confident that this metric is already in place. It wouldn't be very difficult though, if it isn't.

It may be, but if so users should be told.

The fear seems to be that going into specifics would enable the manipulators to dodge detection...but if we are specific enough, what means are they left with. "Oh, I guess I'll just downvote him whenever I see him!" But isn't that organic, and therefore acceptable? Setting specific boundaries will at least reduce the severity of manipulation if it won't outright do away with it, while giving innocent users a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do.

1
-1

[–] 19101324? 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

If I were a betting man, by and large I would guess 100% of the users who complained about being given a warning had, at some point in the past, clicked a users profile and opened everything they could and either up or down voted that specific user, from their user profile page. This is one of those inorganic vs. organic things that I have yet to see two people in the community share the same opinion on, yet is an obvious elephant in the room.