« first day (2301 days earlier)      last day (39 days later) » 

4:38 AM
@quid I meant that just in the first page of reputation history you already see three bouts of fake-upvotes.
The point is that the rep gained in those bouts I mentioned is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
@quid What is too little return? The return is that people (not just that one user) do not get the (otherwise obvious) impression that they can get away with puppet-voting just by trying again and again until the votes stick.
Anyway, I got your point; you don't care enough (too much effort for you). I care about honesty. Whether you think I care too much or not, that's me.
 
 
8 hours later…
12:25 PM
@user21820 indeed that's a priori not unlikely. Thus it was reasonable to ask for it to e checked. I did that and it turns out it isn't.
@user21820 they do not get that impression, because they were now informed that they should not do this and they also will note that it is noted when they do. Of course a second time we would be less generous in our interpretation of the facts.
@user21820 it's not clear to what extent it was dishonest. Indeed, different people have different perceptions and standards. As for me, there is also a difference between what I personally find good conduct and what I consider as useful to pursue and point out.
I try not to start a battle over every molehill. If this locally seems lax, so be it. I think globally it is the right approach.
 
 
2 hours later…
2:28 PM
@quid I see, thanks for checking.
@quid Since it was a one-off event contrary to the impression I got (from looking just at one page of history), I agree with you. Thank you!
 
 
6 hours later…
8:49 PM
Note : some moderator here has the helpful tag written as : "Thanks you" when they address flags, probably a typo so you can correct it.
 
 
2 hours later…
10:39 PM
Sometime it's "thank you". I'm just wondering who that someone moderator is, but me thinks I know! ;)
 

« first day (2301 days earlier)      last day (39 days later) »