@gnat "drive by voting" or "excessive exuberant optimistic voting" or anything else you please that isn't intended to be offensive to victims of a rather horrific crime. I'm not picky about what you call it, just don't call it what you have been please!
@CMW Okay, it's been handled. Apologies for the mis-handled flag. Definitely wasn't an answer from my perspective.
For reference, like that answer that @CMW linked above, if I get a flag on an answer that I feel is clearly not an answer, I am fine with deleting it (with comment letting the answerer know that I will undelete it if they care to make an edit to answer the question posed). I will decline anything that is answering the question even tangentially. Again. Judgment call. Feel free to call me out on it if you think I totally botched it (or to make a meta post about it)
@jmac sorry I fail to see how this reflects the fact of "overwriting" negative score given to post by community "insiders"? FWIW I use this to refer a particular, specific voting pattern, described by Shog as: "Cases where the insiders' votes would've brought a post's score < 0, but outsider votes were present in sufficient quantity to make the post's score positive: 147"
Cases where the insiders' votes would've brought a post's score < 0, but outsider votes were present in sufficient quantity to make the post's score positive: 147
@PaulDonny this (likely just like drive-by voting) adds cases when community "insiders" vote along with outsiders, different from a pattern I am refering to
The Water Cooler
The Water Cooler