|Don't ask to ask, just ask|
(Ozymandias) RE: Limit on voting down a person (Run in circles, scream and shout)by Ozymandias (Hermit)
|on Aug 09, 2000 at 10:05 UTC||Need Help??|
The "Shadow Conspiracy" voting down nodes is a popular idea. It seems to be everyone's favorite excuse when they start to lose XP.
The simple fact of the matter, though, is that it simply isn't important. Suppose someone decides they really, really don't like you, and they spend days voting down every single one of your nodes. In my case, that'd be 130+ nodes, 130+ -- votes - assuming they'd never voted on my stuff before.
Statistically, under the current XP system, I'd lose 43 points. Over the course of (assuming my attacker is a fellow abbot willing to expend all their votes for this purpose) 5 days, I'd lose 43 points.
Of course, in that time, if past history were any judge, I'd GAIN about that many points. I wouldn't lose many points, overall. Meanwhile, our friend is not accomplishing anything else; they're spending all their votes on me.
Now granted, if enough people were to do this, it would be more effective. Assuming, of course, that I didn't simply contribute to the site with meaningful posts and hope that I were rewarded for them with the votes of my fellow peers.
But that's not good enough. You want to make them spend 10 days wasting votes on me. You want to make vroom spend time coding changes. You want to limit the ability for expression that monks have with their votes. And you want to punish "bad" behavior by, at most, a few monks, and restrict the actions of all monks. Why?
Because of one or two incidents that almost certainly had no effect; of the complaints I know about, none have had ANY effect that would be noticed.