« first day (1311 days earlier)      last day (329 days later) » 

11:55 AM
@MichaelGreinecker: Is it acceptable to raise a VLQ flag for posts like this? It says "content problems", but I'm wary because a lot of times such flags get declined even if it is obvious to anyone who knows a bit of the field to see that the post makes no sense whatsoever.
 
12:24 PM
@user21820 Yes, but it helps if it is something you know the mods have knowledge of. In the specific case, I happen to know the area, and with Asaf we now have a genuine set theorist on board. Generally, it also helps if there are comments why it makes no sense.
 
@MichaelGreinecker Thanks!
 
 
5 hours later…
5:32 PM
I think your deleting my original comment is pretty much unexpected (to me at least) @quid. So I will be glad to know (since you have already deleted it), which part of the CoC precisely excludes that type of comments.
 
@user170039 "No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language. "
 
@quid There was no subtle put downs and unfriendly language in my comment.
It was merely a reporting of the fact.
 
Maybe also "No name-calling or personal attacks."
@user170039 no it was not.
 
@quid This is pure nonsense.
 
@user170039 no I'll detail it.
"Interesting because I also had a similar experience of downvoting by, well, you-know-whom."
 
5:38 PM
@quid Ok. Go on.
 
the "by, well, you-know-whom" is the problem as I more-or-less explained there. Had you only reported the fact that (you believe to) have had a similar experience it might pass.
Though even then it's also to the "off-topic" end.
 
@quid Ok then I will just comment that there.
 
@user170039 no.
 
@quid Why so?
 
Because it is essentially off-topic and as I said: @user170039 I do not think that it is compatible with the policy for respectful discourse to operate with innuendo. If you believe that there are problems with votes you received, report it in the intended way.
And as I also detailed there it's not even all that clear there is much anything there to be similar to .
I mean that the initial remark (not yours) is not really all that substantive.
Any number of users get a down-vote here and there based on some interaction. Those mostly affected are likely those that vote to close a lot.
 
5:46 PM
@quid Sorry, didn't see your message earlier. Posted a comment.
@quid I already did.
 
@user170039 no problem. I delete so many comments, one more or less does not change much.
 
@quid You deleted it again?
 
@user170039 well, yes, of course. Especially as you suggest that you only posted it as you had not seen my message in time, this seems pretty clear.
 
@quid But it wasn't at all in any violation with the CoC.
 
I explained already more than once why this comment is not useful there. It is "not needed." If you want to know it exactly I deleted the original one as "unkind" and the others as "not needed" or with no reason (as it's simpler).
 
5:54 PM
@quid Interesting. As I expected.
 
And so that the "any number of users" comment is not misunderstood, again, I do not condone in any way votes cast on main (or anywhere) based on (negative) meta-interaction and for myself I try to make an active effort to avoid this. (Likely many a user was actually spared from legitimate dv votes by this.)
However, there is a huge bandwidth there ranging from: "the vote is pure coincidence" to "somebody got upset on meta and went to main to specifically downvote somebody only over this"
In particular, when somebody shows up on meta (especially somebody that is not often there) then some will check "who that is", i.e., look at the user profile. And then they might vote on something they see as they see fit and not think twice about it. Maybe that's still alright, maybe it isn't. I'd suggest to avoid it, but then just because a use happened to have shown up on meta they cannot be exempt from all voting either.
 
 
2 hours later…
8:35 PM
@quid I think sometimes mods go overboard to protect users who abuse this site, and then hold everyone else accountable to withhold downvotes even if they originate without knowledge of the site's abuse by a user, but merely because the question and/or answer is among the poorest of the poor. So can I post daily to meta to rant, and come back to report any resulting downvotes as retaliation from posting on Meta. Of course, in the meantime, if I happen to receive upvotes, well of course ...
I am talking, btw, of users who abuse this site by abusing meta for their own ends.
 
@amWhy "can I post daily to meta to rant" no, only on Thursdays, the other days are already taken, sorry. :-)
 
@quid :P I better get writing! :-)
 
On the rest, maybe. Though, I am afraid some will say the opposite is true. I like to look at it like this:
It is inefficient to give users that contribute poorly any lever at all to mount claims their content is perceived poorly only for "bad reasons" or to put themselves in the position of them being those that are wronged. Thus, they are to be treated especially correctly with a good margin of safety to avoid any potential for misunderstandings.
 
9:05 PM
@quid That makes some degree of sense, put that way.
 

« first day (1311 days earlier)      last day (329 days later) »