@b_jonas And the Sombra arc is closed.

I was surprised - the care they put in making stories that can fit in the show canon is really getting better.

@shadow - I was thinking... Want to bet that the Secret Hat question and the hat references one will get purged after the bash end like last year, with all the messages merged in one lucky user that will get to keep the rep?

Anyway, I got my main goal - unlock the advanced flagging on this account. Since the privileges aren't retracted anyway, they can remove the posts - I don't care for the rep on this account.

@Derpy but they did not purge it last year

it's all in there.

Wait, you mean merging all answers into one? I think it's fair enough, to make it as a faq and more organized. Rep is lost, true, but badges are kept. (Nice Answer etc)

@Derpy privileges are retracted, badges are not. If you don't have enough rep at any given moment for a certain privilege, you won't have that privilege.

(e.g. user with 101 rep place a 100 rep bounty - and lose all privileges, even using the meta site)

@ShadowWizard They are? I was thinking they were not. Isn't that a little lame? I mean, if you have 2k and do a bounty, then you are no longer a trusted user???

(I think trusted user is 2k, not checking the actual number but you got the idea)

Oh, well. Their loss if I can't flag spam, not mine.

@Derpy yes, for me it's natural since it's what I know, there is a good discussion about it here:

(losing due to deleted posts isn't any different for that matter)

BTW, while badges are not retracted, losing the answer that got you the badge will prevent you from gaining the next badge of same type. i.e. if you have 2 nice answer badges and one of the answers that got you that badge is deleted, you'll keep the 2 badges, but the next time an answer of yours gets a score of 10, you won't get a new nice answer badge.

@ShadowWizard Read Tim answer. Pure nonsense. One is less trusted because it contributed to quality by giving a bounty.

I could understand the loss for deleted post (which is still a nonsense if the deletion is a clean-up one like the hat post, but this is such a borderline case I don't really care), but for the bounties.... it is a serpent eating its own tail all again.

This mean that on a low traffic site -> low rep -> users will be even more driven away from bounties -> even lower traffic

I also see the discussion is dated '09, so it's not use to fight this windmill again. As I said to Lazlo once, I'm no more Don Quixote

@Derpy well said. So you once tried to be Don Quixote? :)

@ShadowWizard Well, don't take it harshly, but when I first got on meta I was thinking some things could be changed in the system stack has created. Now I know that it is no use trying.

@Derpy things like downvotes? I have a feeling you share the same opinion as this person:

Or was it something else for you?

@ShadowWizard The unexplained downvotes is just one of many, and I have saw multiple time how people react to defend their little "privilege to anonymity": "no mater what you say, you are just whining". The whole "you got downvoted because someone lost its key" is also used to mock any serious proposal.

I have already explained my problem: SharePoint is a pretty bad environment, and often something just seem to work, until you discover that in reality it is broken.

@Derpy I don't think Tim Post meant to mock anyone. More like "that's how things work here, deal with it" kind of statement.

@ShadowWizard Tim Post maybe didn't meant it. All the others that used Tim Post joke after that... I am not sure.

@Derpy that's true, but we can't possibly "educate" them all.

It is a very quick way to dismiss anyone, with reference to an old discussion and semy-official answers.

Back here, sorry, had to go away for a while.

@ShadowWizard Anyway, some of my old comments still stand here. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6521/…

free to have a lock if you wish to, but I am not interested in attempting a new meta proposal/discussion anymore.

@Derpy thanks, worth reading, and I totally understand why you're not interested in trying again - to be honest, we're kind of on two opposite sides on this, since I do support having the option for anonymous downvotes.

@ShadowWizard I don't oppose the idea that the voting is anonymous. I oppose the idea that you are entitled to vote as you wish, even random if you want to (yes, I got that reply and so did "Crybaby" Lazlo, as the community "kindly" called him) and as such you shouldn't be forced to lose "your precious time" to comment because Stack should just "be happy I am losing my time to vote".

We are on Stack to learn, and if I am searching an answer, probably I don't know the right way to do that in advance. If I see random votes with no explanation, my ability to understand if the answer is actually hiding a mayor problem is undermined.

That is why what I support is a system that would promote people actually teaching others what they did wrong, instead of just pointing a finger and walk away.

Sadly, I don't know how I could implement this, and the community doesn't seem interested in getting involved in a brainstorming.

@Derpy well, the major flaw here, which I consider impossible to solve, is that nobody can really know why user X downvoted (or upvoted) user Y. Not me, not you, and of course no automated system. User X might have did it with excellent reason, or totally in random. I agree it's OK to try and disucss this, try to find ways, but most people probably simply think it's waste of time, being impossible to begin with.

The main issue I see is wanting to protect the "privilege" to be able to vote at random if you wish, and bash on a principle any attempt at giving a way to explain the votes while still protected from revenge. Sorry, @ShadowWizard, IMHO I don't think it is just "it is impossible, so we don't want to lose time talking about it".

You may be one of the few that actually think that, but for some I am pretty sure the matter is just protecting the anonymity, to be sure that they can vote at random whenever they want

@ShadowWizard New hat, if you didn't notice it before.

Flying Tiger.

Only balpha seem to have it

@Derpy I've already sent my theory to pops

nothing worth notice on his profile.

@Quill-HATMANIAC What's the theory?

lol I would've posted it in chat if I wanted to tell you lot

jk

look at his activity

As expected, Archimedas always manage to bring out the best of us. Sorry, I am out of it.

I did. Are you referring to badges he got?

@Eran I think that that message and the one before should be a good indication that he won't tell.

After all, it is expected. Eureka is a competition, and by posting your theory you give others a nice shoot at stealing your idea.

In the past years, we awarded Eureka to multiple people to handle such cases. If you were the one that posted a theory and then another refined it, you would both get Eureka.

seem it was a too considerate girlish thing to do.

We should really try to be more macho, Iron Will like...

ouch bro

@Eran yes I was

@Quill-HATMANIAC I am not blaming you, the whole idea of Eureka encourages conflict between users.

I said it before the winter bash started, I say it now.

Let. That. Hat. Be. Forgotten.

@Derpy might be employee-only hat, manually awarded, just for fun.

@ShadowWizard Possible. I don't get why they would reference a voluntary flying squadron if that was the case, but still possible.

@Derpy well, I really don't think that many people vote randomly. True, it exists, it happens, it's highly frustrating and harmful, but I don't think it's happening enough to be worried about.

@ShadowWizard Again, I beg you to try and see the problem from the point of view of a SharePoint users, not a meta/SE one. Have you seen our scores? Majority of answers are at 1-2+

@Derpy well, it's like kicking an ant nest and watching the ants run all over the place. Maybe he just wanted to see us trying to guess.... :)

Can you tell if a +2/-1 is better than a +1/0? i often can't

@ShadowWizard Enough strange to have us wonder, but not so strange to make us realize. Can be.

@Derpy admit that I didn't. So if it's such a large scale problem, maybe do give it a try on the per-site meta? As a high rep user there, your voice might have some influence.

@ShadowWizard Almost no one even reads SharePoint meta.

@Derpy pretty sure CM's do, you can ask Jon to take a look. They do have tools that might identify voting patterns, so who knows...

@ShadowWizard Anyway, it is the second military themed hat, so I guess it is "real" and obtainable.

@Eran my theory was two nice questions in a day

@Quill-HATMANIAC nice questions? Did you mean nice answers? Balpha did have nice question badges recently.

nice answers lol

i is dum

@Quill-HATMANIAC You should re-think it. I had two nice answers on SO on 12/15.

well it's fine anyway, I already spammed pops with it

@Quill-HATMANIAC However one of them was an older answer

@Eran he also had one enlighten badge, it may be related.

@Eran alright:

Two Nice Answer badges for answers posted on the same day as receiving the badges

Has a theory for number of reply already been made for the over 9000?

@Derpy: A little late, but I've made 8 so far to pops

Is anyone who's not working for StackOverflow known to have the Flying Tiger yet?

@b_jonas not yet

The last message was posted 19 days ago.