Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

(kudra: people, not technology, best solve problems like this) RE: RE: (2): Limit on voting down a person (Run in circles, scream and shout)

by kudra (Vicar)
on Aug 09, 2000 at 19:17 UTC ( #27061=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to RE (2): Limit on voting down a person (Run in circles, scream and shout)
in thread Limit on voting down a person

I think perceptions of both how much it hurts and how prevalant such behavior is are quite dependant upon the person looking at it. -40 hurts a lot at level 2, and a lot less at level 6. It's hard to say how common this really is; if it hasn't happened to you, you may think it doesn't happen much, whereas if it has happened to you, you may feel that it is common. I come from the perspective of someone that this hasn't happened to, so my opinions may be tainted by that.

I am probably most in favor of the second suggestion, because I feel that technical solutions will fail. Having it take twice as long to vote down someone doesn't mean it won't happen (it just means, to the cynical, that you can have two vendettas at a time). I can also think of valid reasons for voting many posts by the same person down in a row. It's a way of dealing with a troll, for example, as nodes with too low reputation may be removed.

Likewise, I do not think the third idea will work; it's easy to circumvent. It would be simple to -- one or two nodes by someone a day.

Solution four would make the problem worse, perhaps even triggering new vendettas when a post is voted down without malicious intent. Not everyone is as gracious as lindex when it comes to accepting other people's votes. I am pretty certain that you already considered this since it is near the bottom of the list.

In the end, it always depends on the users. It's possible to limit the potential for abuse, but it cannot be completely eliminated in a technical way (without implementing meaningless restrictions, such as removing the option of a -- vote). That is why I think a discussion is better than any of the technical solutions.

I reserve the right to support another solution if one is suggested that I think is better :)


Comment on (kudra: people, not technology, best solve problems like this) RE: RE: (2): Limit on voting down a person (Run in circles, scream and shout)
I am shortening this title to "General Agreement" :-)
by tilly (Archbishop) on Aug 09, 2000 at 20:25 UTC
    You by and large stated my feelings except in one regard.

    I believe that what has happened to me is indeed unusual, but I think that some of the people it happens to, as btrott pointed out, are people with a disproportionate potential impact. Therefore the loss of useful content is completely out of proportion either with how many people (probably very few) that encounter a problem.

      I think the people VOTING, not the people POSTING, should evaluate the use and potential impact of nodes.

      - email Ozymandias

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://27061]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (13)
As of 2014-10-20 12:13 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (75 votes), past polls