Hey mods, continuing the above thread, I just though it should be noted that Yez noted explicitly that he would not accept my answers as correct, out of malice. I don't know if this constitutes abuse of voting, or some other sort of actionable abuse, but it seems like the sort of thing mods should be aware of.@DoubleAA

If it is relevant, I remind them of his general abuse, as flagging history will (partially) show.

@mevaqesh Duly noted. Acceptance is generally considered a form of vote; as far as I can recall, there's no site rule barring withholding votes from particular users.

Actually, I just reviewed the comments, including deleted comments, on the question you link to, and I see no such explicit note from @Yez.

@msh210 Did you see the particular comment I linked to? I can't read it, as i'm not a mod, but if memory serves, he said he won't be marking any of my answers as correct, since he was annoyed that I asked him to clarify what additional information he was looking for.

Your memory fails you in this instance. He said, rather, that acceptance would be withheld from you on a particular question if you did certain things on that question. Presumably he'll do the same to anyone and there's nothing personal.

@mevaqesh Fully apart from the controversy at hand, whenever you're going out of your way to try to teach other users to use the "Accept" functionality, could you please stop misrepresenting it as "marking as correct"? That is not what it means. Might as well teach correctly.

@IsaacMoses I do that by mistake sometimes. These days I usually say "accepted" rather than correct.

@msh210 Are you sure? "I thought he said "will no longer be" I didn't think it was pegged on future behaviour. Would you mind just posting the text of the comment, so my curiosity wont annoy me. I am probably just misremembering.

@Yez and @mevaqesh, I would like to point out that you're expending a non-zero amount of your own and others' energy over whether a particular glyph appears next to a particular answer, imaginary Internet points that go with that, commentary about that, and commentary about commentary about that. I respectfully request that you each consider how important these matters are in the scheme of things, remember that you're addressing another human with feelings, and try to chart a path forward ...

... that strikes the balance you see fit between the former and the latter.

(Sorry if this is a little heavy-handed, and no, I don't consider myself personally to be a perfect examplar of keeping my cool when in a state of Internet disagreement. Just trying to moderate (#8).)

@IsaacMoses Not heavy handed. True. But not complete. After all, we have hundreds of questions on meta about voting. And while you are correct of course that it ought not be a source of conversation in and of itself, the complete truth is that votes are a motivator to some if not all users.

Similarly, serial downvoting, or even outright verbal abuse are on one plane not real, and yet on another (admittedly lower) plane, are real and warrant mod. attention. Pointing out the nature of the issue in question is a kumbaya approach, that is, it ignores the issues at hand, appealing to a loftier plane that while real is incomplete and can be used as an excuse to ignore issues on a lower plane, that are nevertheless real.

@mevaqesh the most important issue at the moment, AFAIC, is that the two of you are fighting, and in public. I'm not saying that the imaginary points don't matter at all. I'm saying quit fighting

And I use the term "fighting" rather than "debating" or "disagreeing" advisedly.

@IsaacMoses After I was falsely accused of behavior that would have been consistent with site policy even had I done it, how should I have responded? Were my comments ad hominem (more than they are by definition in addressing personal accusations, rather than content). It is nice to appeal to "peace" and implied moral equivalency, but, other than ignoring attacks against oneself posted in a public forum, how should one respond.

If I misremembered the content of a deleted post, I apologize. I would be happy to see the post to clarify.

Interestingly, note: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/56479/….

@mevaqesh No, and he can explain his words himself if he so chooses. Yes.

Plus, I second what @IsaacMoses wrote.

The comments about accepting answers feel to me like "please vote for my stuff" even if that's not the intent. They leave a bad taste for me, and I imagine that's true for others too.

More generally, if you're active here for a while you'll probably find that there are users you keep having disagreements with. This manifests in comments like this, in comments like "thanks for your downvote" (you have no idea who voted unless someone says), repeated and sometimes-prickly comment arguments, and weaponized flags. None of that helps the site.

If you find yourself in situations like this, if there's somebody you just don't get along with, if you keep having the same arguments over and over... please ask yourself whether engaging this time will be positive or negative and, if you can't make it positive, just back away. If you see bad stuff, flag it and walk away.

@mevaqesh "other than ignoring attacks against oneself posted in a public forum" Why are we ignoring that option?If I delete a rude comment directed at me, Im accused of censorship. You have the enviable situation where you can just flag and ignore. It's really not a big deal if for a few hours in a small corner of the internet there is a comment maybe by a dog which, if you have sufficient technical background knowledge, can be construed as something negative about your online anonymous persona

@DoubleAA Your last sentence is still true even if you strike the clause "for a few hours"