Timeline for New phenomenon: Rage Unaccepting
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Feb 3, 2013 at 22:39 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @EliahKagan: Since the person in question has deigned to reply by saying that it's self-vandalism, I think "rage unaccept" seems fitting. | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 17:19 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | @Doorknob The unaccepts could still be due to any of the other possibilities that have been discussed. But like I said, suppose these are rage unaccepts. A policy change... Well, never mind. I think I've made my point. :) | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 17:17 | comment | added | Doorknob |
@EliahKagan it's not clear that any of them are really rage unaccepts. I'm disagreeing with that. What else would it be?
|
|
| Feb 3, 2013 at 17:17 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | @Doorknob If you're making a point, can you explain what it is? We can all see their profile, too. This is still one person. A policy change based on this--especially restricting users' ability to unaccept--would damage a working system, for no reason. | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 15:06 | comment | added | Arjan | "why do you not think it is also OK for someone to mass downvote/targeted downvote?" because, @Lorum, nothing was massively downvoted. All we saw when we wrote our comments was mass unaccepting, for which you asked how it could "be anything but malicious?", but which I feel could have been done for many more reasons than malicious intent, like the example I gave. That's all. | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 14:47 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | I disagree. There is no justification to unaccept all answers. That user never really posted "thanks, it's working" nor "sorry, it does not work" comments, he's the silent type. If it was one, two or even three answers unaccepted then I wouldn't bother but it's way more than that, and most of those are good answers with upvotes that were already accepted before. No proof for "rage", but at least "irrational unaccept issue" that also should be dealt with at some point. | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 14:33 | comment | added | Lorem Ipsum | @Arjan Just because nothing was defaced doesn't mean it wasn't malicious in intent. In this case, it has made a group of users unhappy and has sent the community on an unnecessary discussion trip. If "nothing has been defaced" is your metric, why do you not think it is also OK for someone to mass downvote/targeted downvote? Nothing has been defaced there either... they're just expressing disagreement with the answer, which is probably justified too. Yet, it's a suspendable offense. It might not be a big deal for SO, but on a smaller site or even a small tag on SO, it is absolutely a big deal. | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 14:25 | comment | added | Arjan | (Ah, I just read in the comments that some answers were deleted, and meanwhile undeleted by a moderator.) | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 14:25 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | @LoremIpsum One user is one data point. Furthermore, if someone's already unhappy with most of their accepts, they'll probably continue to be unhappy with them during the course of any given 20 minute interval. Assuming rage unaccepting is happening, I maintain that it is critically important to distinguish it from other forms of mass unaccepting, which we should expect and sometimes even embrace. (That does not mean we should not do something about rage unaccepting, but it means we must be careful. If you have many more examples by other users, please add them to your question.) | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 14:22 | comment | added | Arjan | "be anything but malicious?" I disagree, @Lorem. What true malicious thing has been done here? Sure, some folks (including the OP who unaccepted) lost some reputation, and above all it's harder to tell that the question was answered. But nothing has been defaced. Without any reaction from the OP, this could still just be someone who doesn't care about reputation and thinks the community should make the highest upvoted answer float to the top of the list. (I never understood why the accepted answer is always shown first, even when sorted by votes.) | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 14:16 | comment | added | Lorem Ipsum | The three mentioned were only examples... how can unaccepting 20 answers in 4 minutes be anything but malicious? One does not simply wake up one fine day and realize that answers to all the questions you asked 2 years ago were unsatisfactory... | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 14:08 | history | answered | Eliah Kagan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |