Timeline for What is the Solution to CAREFUL Serial Down-voting? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 31, 2020 at 17:59 | comment | added | JonathanZ | People who are curious about the phenomenon that @amWhy has remarked on can find out more by checking out the concept of "markedness" in linguistics. (You could start with Wikipedia.) It's theoretically interesting, and it has definitely influenced the way I speak and write. | |
| Oct 31, 2020 at 15:05 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Oct 31, 2020 at 16:20 | |||||
| Oct 31, 2020 at 10:46 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 31, 2020 at 3:09 | history | closed |
amWhy KReiser José Carlos Santos Leucippus JMP |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 23:35 | comment | added | amWhy | What's interesting is that I recognize in a roomful of people, or a smaller group, when one says "Guys, let's party", the plural seems gender neutral, but when one says "Some guy just....." it implies the "guy" is a male. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 23:29 | comment | added | JonathanZ | Chiming in to agree that "they" is the perfect pronoun to use for when you're not sure of the gender or pronoun preference of the person you are addressing, at least in the variety of English used on math.se. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:57 | comment | added | Arctic Char | Its not clear if the noun "dude" is gender neutral..... well just saying... | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:47 | comment | added | Matt Samuel | @ConsiderNon-TrivialCases Since you asked, singular "they" is usually a safe pronoun. SE is pretty serious about using the correct ones if they're specified though. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:41 | comment | added | user1729 | @Consider My point is that your default assumption seems to be "they are male", which is wrong 50% of the time. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:33 | comment | added | user1729 | (Also, why do you think amWhy is a "he"? You also use "he" to mean a generic user in the question. Many mathematics are female...) | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:31 | comment | added | user1729 | @Consider My comment was asking you to clarify the final paragraph; it was not meant as a criticism. It currently reads like you were banned because you were serially upvoted, but the system does not work like that (banning for being upvoted would be unjust, as people upvoting you is not something you can control). | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:31 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 31, 2020 at 3:09 | |||||
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:26 | comment | added | Consider Non-Trivial Cases | @GerryMyerson yes that is why I wrote "moderator responded" including "(or the system?)" since now I came to know about the script, but amWHY removed the word moderator, that is why I had to rollback | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:23 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Um, that's what's supposed to happen, isn't it? You flag a post for moderator attention, and a moderator responds. "what to make of that" is that flagging is working the way it should, right? | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:16 | comment | added | Consider Non-Trivial Cases | @GerryMyerson I flagged those posts and moderator responded, now tell me what to make of that? | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:15 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Well, it is the software, not the moderators, that detects and reverses serial downvoting. But Matt's advice to flag for moderator attention is still good. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:12 | comment | added | Consider Non-Trivial Cases | @GerryMyerson ah , that was missed, I rolled back because he removed "moderator" from the post, now I have corrected. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:11 | history | edited | Consider Non-Trivial Cases | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:11 | history | rollback | Consider Non-Trivial Cases |
Rollback to Revision 4
|
|
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:11 | history | edited | amWhy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:10 | history | rollback | amWhy |
Rollback to Revision 2
|
|
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:09 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | No worries. But while we're on the topic of editing, you wrote, "this time of problem," which doesn't really make sense, and @amWhy edited that to "this type of problem," which does make sense. Why did you rollback that useful edit? | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:09 | comment | added | amWhy | You wrote more about other incidents you ranted about, than you did focus on the present situation. And as @ArcticChar, pointed out, the script acts only at the end of the day. I was responding to your overall tone. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:06 | comment | added | Consider Non-Trivial Cases | @GerryMyerson thanks, edited. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:06 | history | edited | Consider Non-Trivial Cases | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:05 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | "there is a script to prevent serial down-voting" No. There is a script to detect serial down-voting, and to reverse it. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:04 | history | rollback | Consider Non-Trivial Cases |
Rollback to Revision 1
|
|
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:02 | comment | added | Consider Non-Trivial Cases | @amWhy but that does not reflect in the present situation which I elaborately described, please re-read, also as a human being, based on interaction you can guess, because posts are written in a gap and downvoting happens in a very quick time (yes you can see the time) all are not that ill-motivated in MSE, based on your 2 comments and support for another abusive member, it looks like you need to rant not me, chill man, chill. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:01 | history | edited | amWhy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 17 characters in body
|
| Oct 30, 2020 at 21:00 | comment | added | Arctic Char | If the downvotes are from today, you might wait a bit longer to see if the script revert the votes. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 20:59 | comment | added | amWhy | @user1729 did not call you a sockpuppet; they simply explained that sometimes rapid upvotes in succession, from one account or two accounts might or might not, indicate that there are sockpuppet account involved. Never once did they demean you; and I'm perplexed as to why felt so defensive in your first comment, posted above? | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 20:55 | comment | added | amWhy | Gaining unearned rep is just as much suspect as is losing too much rep. And how, perchance, do you know the "person who did this", let alone whether they were suspended or warned, or not?? Your post strikes me as an accusation about someone you don't name, posted when you felt the need to rant. I'd like to ask why you are not as suspicious about unexplained upvotes, as you are about unexplained downvotes? | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 20:40 | comment | added | Consider Non-Trivial Cases | @user1729 it is offensive and demeaning to call someone puppet. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 20:19 | comment | added | user1729 | I'm not sure how to interpret your final paragraph. It reads like you were banned after receiving lots of upvotes. If someone serially upvotes you then those votes will be removed, yes, but you will not be banned (although the serial upvoter might be?). The exception is, of course, if one of the accounts is a "sockpuppet". | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 19:42 | answer | added | Matt Samuel | timeline score: 9 | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 19:15 | history | asked | Consider Non-Trivial Cases | CC BY-SA 4.0 |