-5
$\begingroup$

I came to know that there is a script to detect serial down-voting but as it is the case always for any script, there is a set-threshold, and if a careful person somehow figures that out (for example, by trial and error method), he can do Serial Down-voting by carefully waiting and then down vote in a measured way or can use different accounts or friends in the same forum.

Today my 8 posts were down-voted as a part of serial voting in 2 succession (in this week total 12 posts in 3 successions).

When I faced this type of problem in the past (happened 4-6 times), moderator (or the system?) responded by undoing that (4 times), but recently they have turned a blind eye , also, the person who did this, didn't face any consequences (like getting banned), so he is keep doing this.

On the other hand up-vote will always meet with severe punishment, my hundreds of points have been reduced in (2 successions) and I was banned. It looks like serial voting is crime if it is a upvote, but if it is downvote, MSE is happy to let this bullying happen!

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ 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". $\endgroup$ – user1729 Oct 30 at 20:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$ – amWhy Oct 30 at 20:55
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @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? $\endgroup$ – amWhy Oct 30 at 20:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If the downvotes are from today, you might wait a bit longer to see if the script revert the votes. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Oct 30 at 21:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "there is a script to prevent serial down-voting" No. There is a script to detect serial down-voting, and to reverse it. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 30 at 21:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – amWhy Oct 30 at 21:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 30 at 21:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 30 at 21:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 30 at 21:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @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). $\endgroup$ – user1729 Oct 30 at 21:31
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ (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...) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Oct 30 at 21:33
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Consider My point is that your default assumption seems to be "they are male", which is wrong 50% of the time. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Oct 30 at 21:41
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Matt Samuel Oct 30 at 21:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – JonathanZ supports MonicaC Oct 30 at 23:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – amWhy Oct 30 at 23:35
7
$\begingroup$

If you suspect someone is targeting you and serially downvoting you while not triggering the script, flag one of the posts for moderator attention and explain the situation. They can investigate.

| |
$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .