Why stop there? I'm thinking with your expertise we could find more information. Phone numbers, addresses, possibly even credit card info... We could see to it this stops permanently, after we're done people will never downrep again.

Ok, other arguments aside, that's just a worrying slant to take. I wouldn't trust you with that data now. You're taking coincidence to be fact, and pointing fingers.


EDIT: Basically, you've justified his point that this is becoming a witch hunt.

Did someone say witch hunt?
Witch Hunt

I knew before I clicked the link.

Trying to lighten the mood is all. :D

He would make a really good STASI agent, maybe he is working with PRISM. But yeah, seriously, paranoia is nothing new with Xyem, just look into is replog thread.
I could see that abuse by multiple accounts is a bit of a problem (not really a big one, since rep is so pointless), but he seems to be more concerned about normal users downrepping anything. Anyway, its going to be funny when he succeeds and then him and his comrades turn into crusading downreppers themselves.

No, I'm not saying that. Just that he went too far here.

So if I understand this edit correctly, what you are saying if you get the timestamps for a particular forum user who makes a post, and within an hour somebody got de-repped, that would be your proof that the person who posted clicked the minus button?

I gotta be missing something because there is no way logically that situation A (posting) would lead anyone to assume situation B (downrepping) was being done by the same person between 1 and 60 minutes later. Hundreds of people make posts every hour, maybe a handful get uprepped and derepped in that same hour. How do you know that particular forum user isn't actually uprepping and someone who hasn't even posted in that hour is downrepping? Besides that, how does this theory give credence to the multiple accounts theory? Do you think someone with 100 accounts is logging each in systematically, making a post to show their presence and then going to downrep posts from months ago such that this system will catch that person in the act? Because if that's the case, this OCD person has 100 accounts each with well over 100 rep while systematically targeting their enemies.

I don't know man, seems like a huge leap to take if I'm following correctly. Very extreme conspiracy theory with a bunch of assumptions being made. Feel free to make it more clear because this part doesn't seem logical the way I currently read it.

I'd like to point out again, yes I'm repeating myself, that I do NOT use multiple accounts. I mention this only because so far I'm the only one in this thread who has been accused of it.

This, right here, was my line of reasoning for years, so I feel weird arguing against it... When I've told people "I don't believe anyone would be capable of committing an act they'd themselves recognized as evil" people merely shook their heads and looked at me condescendingly.
I can't give you a satisfactory answer, but here's what little I can think of: at some point we can define "think is right" to mean almost the same thing as "want to", or at the very least to apply to the same set of situations with a different connotation (compare: "to have a heart" - "to have kidneys"). At that point the claim that anyone can do what they think is wrong would be a contradiction.
- - -
A few loose images:
"Giving in to temptation", having that slice of cake, etc.
A person apologizing profusely after giving in to, say, anger. A wife-beater saying "never again".
A troll saying and doing things for the amusement of watching others suffer.
In general - a "malicious" person.

I hope you never will. This is a very dark and terrifying side of the human psyche, one I can scarcely comprehend.
The desire to destroy, maim, kill... Haven't you seen people playing, say, GTA not for the story, but simply to get their hands on some weapons and cause mayhem? Hell - Postal is probably a more common example... Now imagine this drive unleashed on the world around us.
Think of children who get a kick out of ripping the legs off of flies, "kicking puppies".
You may argue that there is a level of conscious "I want this, it feels good, it's right" that's going on, but this ultimately IS the radical evil.

Oh, I got it: these people don't use the WORD "evil". They simply want to do X for X's sake, with X being something objectively (please don't dwell on this aspect) evil.

So things like Milgram's experiment don't count, eh? I've read somewhere that plenty of serial killers are actually driven by a compulsion, so this might count as "addiction"...

Would you like to meet someone who says things like "u mad bro ?" ? They might be a (relatively) mild example...

You're slowly crossing the line between "well-meaning investigator" and "mad (computer) scientist"...

Lustration came to my mind, along with a fairly known movie... I can already picture people burning their downvotes at a landfill...

THE Nietzsche quote feels irresistibly appropriate...

On other forums, it's prefectly visible who repped which post. If GOG has something against this, they should just stop Xyem. Period.

And some of you guys are taking this waaaaaay too seriously. Just saiyan.

Sorry, that "interpretation" was intended as a joke (if thats the part you are referring to?). I didn't really interpret the low-rating that way simply because I can't. Being low-rated is unconstructive negative feedback because I have no idea which part of what I said they objected to (indeed, if anything!). This is precisely why I am glad you posted your feedback because now I know it was taken badly and can try to correct the miscommunication.

I'm well aware the "correlation does not equal causation" which is why if I did get that data from GOG (or whatever), I would only post the graph of rep loss against the activity. I wouldn't use it as concrete evidence because it isn't.. just show what I believe to be a "suspicious coincidence" which, I hope, would be reasonable. It's not just the "losing rep when this specific person is active" that made it suspicious, it's the "and not losing rep when they aren't".

However, it could have just been that they happened to be the 5th person to downrate. Perfectly innocent explantions are still possible, even if there was a correlation!

It actually makes me sad that you wouldn't trust me with the data (well, hopefully you have changed your mind back now but still..). I try very hard to be reasonable, unbiased and trustable and love it when people identify issues with my methods and conclusions because it means I can improve and fix them. I hate not being corrected way more than I hate being wrong in the first place.

If you want an example of how I really approach things like this, I didn't include extra information in RepLog (such as location) just because I didn't state they would be recorded and thus, hadn't been given permission by the people who had already started using it to record it.

Are you referring to the abyss one?

If so, it doesn't apply (to me at least). I have no intention whatsoever of "crusade downrepping" anyone. This should be pretty obvious when I have only downrated for rep testing (recently) and a couple of times for spam (2 years ago!).

As I said to wpegg, I try very hard to be trustable and utilising my skills as a weapon against another user would utterly ruin that. If I found out with very high confidence that someone in particular was abusing the rep system, I would report them to GOG and simply leave if GOG refused to do anything about it at all. There is no point sticking around in a community where malicious users are given a free pass..
I'm curious. What about that makes it "crossing the line"?

After all, knowing someone is a victim (like RepLog sort-of can) does absolutely nothing to help the investigation into who is the perpetrator. I can't actually be a well-meaning investigator without having access to information I can investigate. Why does acquiring it myself make me a "mad computer scientist" but getting it from GOG would not (I presume)?

This. So many times, this.

I'm in limbo whether GOG approves or objects to my efforts and it is a horrible position to be in. I wish they'd just come and say either way.