I’ve gotten sufficient evidence from support that voiceofra has been doing retributive downvoting.
Requesting a transparency report.
Regarding (if $time-$postdate then karmadisabled), I can’t see a reason as to why something like that shouldn’t be implemented in less than a week. Any reason why it shouldn’t? I never quite got the krama drama.
I think it’s bad form to make costly (in terms of time) requests to moderators unless you’re willing to be part of the solution. In this case, it would be good at minimum to outline exactly what you mean by a “transparency report”—concretely, what sort of information would you like to see, and why would it be helpful? It would be even better if you were willing to volunteer to help in creating the report to the extent that the help can be utilized.
No, that’s the moderator’s responsibility to explain why they have taken their course of action.
Not in a case like this. There no reason in an online forum like this to give people who violate the rules full information about how they were caught.
If you read the discussions leading up to picking a moderator I don’t think you find an agreement on a responsiblity of a moderator to explain everything they do. Nancy has a responsibility to moderate when problems arise but she doesn’t have a responsibility to explain everything.
In the past putting to much effort into criticizing moderator actions resulted in this community being undermoderated and we shouldn’t repeat that mistake.
You don’t care about how much time your requests cost me? Nice to know.
Here’s what your wrote, first line of this post:
I’ve gotten sufficient evidence from support that voiceofra has been doing retributive downvoting. I’ve banned them without prior notice because I’m not giving them more chances to downvote.
If you have sufficient evidence, why can’t you publish it?
I said over 800 downvotes to three people. This is what support emailed to me. I could copy and paste some support emails with more detail, but I don’t know whether you’d trust me, and I don’t know whether I’m being invited into an extended discussion which will be utterly pointless.
There’s some elements of won’t rather than can’t. I’m not fond of complying with rude demands.
Just out of curiosity, how unusual is this? That works out to 267 per person, which if those three people happen to be people who post a lot of downvote worthy content, and this has been going on for a while doesn’t necessarily seem that large.
It’s at least unusual in the sense that the top downvoter to a particular member has generally posted about three times as many downvotes as the second most prolific downvoter—and the second most prolific downvoter is also a problematic downvoter. The top five downvoters for a member show something like a power law in terms of numbers of downvotes.
I’m not answering your second question. I’ve got a bad feeling about doing so, and I suspect the result would tend towards drama and possibly be a violation of privacy.
It’s at least unusual in the sense that the top downvoter to a particular member has generally posted about three times as many downvotes as the second most prolific downvoter—and the second most prolific downvoter is also a problematic downvoter.
How about the top downvoter for a different member?
It takes me weeks to get answers from support. I assume they’re busy, so I’m not going to ask them extra questions, even though that’s an interesting one.
It’s possible that the stats show a different pattern if they’re from people who aren’t complaining.
Requesting a transparency report.
Regarding (if $time-$postdate then karmadisabled), I can’t see a reason as to why something like that shouldn’t be implemented in less than a week. Any reason why it shouldn’t? I never quite got the krama drama.
Wait? is ‘LessWrong’ not an admin account? I always assumed it was, but this thread implies otherwise.
I think it’s an extremely bad idea to allow an ordinary user to name themselves after the site. You’re basically inpersonating an admin!
You are right. I also think it would be a good idea to rename the account.
I think it’s bad form to make costly (in terms of time) requests to moderators unless you’re willing to be part of the solution. In this case, it would be good at minimum to outline exactly what you mean by a “transparency report”—concretely, what sort of information would you like to see, and why would it be helpful? It would be even better if you were willing to volunteer to help in creating the report to the extent that the help can be utilized.
No, that’s the moderator’s responsibility to explain why they have taken their course of action. I don’t care about time.
I quoted the exact part I wanted an explanation on.
You don’t care about how much time your requests cost me? Nice to know.
Not in a case like this. There no reason in an online forum like this to give people who violate the rules full information about how they were caught.
If you read the discussions leading up to picking a moderator I don’t think you find an agreement on a responsiblity of a moderator to explain everything they do. Nancy has a responsibility to moderate when problems arise but she doesn’t have a responsibility to explain everything.
In the past putting to much effort into criticizing moderator actions resulted in this community being undermoderated and we shouldn’t repeat that mistake.
He point of having moderators is to empower them to make these decisions without having to consult the community.
It took that long for tech support to get back to me.
I can’t reply to your other comment (karma)
Here’s what your wrote, first line of this post:
If you have sufficient evidence, why can’t you publish it?
I said over 800 downvotes to three people. This is what support emailed to me. I could copy and paste some support emails with more detail, but I don’t know whether you’d trust me, and I don’t know whether I’m being invited into an extended discussion which will be utterly pointless.
There’s some elements of won’t rather than can’t. I’m not fond of complying with rude demands.
Just out of curiosity, how unusual is this? That works out to 267 per person, which if those three people happen to be people who post a lot of downvote worthy content, and this has been going on for a while doesn’t necessarily seem that large.
Who are those three people anyway?
It’s at least unusual in the sense that the top downvoter to a particular member has generally posted about three times as many downvotes as the second most prolific downvoter—and the second most prolific downvoter is also a problematic downvoter. The top five downvoters for a member show something like a power law in terms of numbers of downvotes.
I’m not answering your second question. I’ve got a bad feeling about doing so, and I suspect the result would tend towards drama and possibly be a violation of privacy.
How about the top downvoter for a different member?
It takes me weeks to get answers from support. I assume they’re busy, so I’m not going to ask them extra questions, even though that’s an interesting one.
It’s possible that the stats show a different pattern if they’re from people who aren’t complaining.
It sounds like the moderators don’t have direct read access to the logs. Maybe it would simplify things if they (or at least one of them) did.