Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Half of our current “featured questions” list consists of three questions by a user well known for his peculiarity, whose combined total of -18 votes doesn’t leave any doubt that they are regarged as terrible by the community, and which already have satisfactory answers anyway. Each question was awarded a 500 bounty by Frictionless Jellyfish on the grounds that “one or more of the answers is exemplary and worthy of an additional bounty”. Do we really want this?
...and that's why there are limits on bounties and how quick you can give the reputation.
It seems like this is a case of "reputation transfer", which is quite unfair (If you grant me this rhyme/and if not, then perhaps another time).
@Joseph van Name. 300 with the new reputation system. However, I would not call Porton’s questions the “worst questions”. Sometimes his behaviour is inappropriate, I know him (not personally), but this does not make every of his filter-/lattice-theory questions into “worst questions on this site”. And your comparison is not quite accurate since it is not Porton who got the bounties.
@All It seems like that Frictionless Jellyfish has created a new account and he wanted to transfer reputation to this account (in MO 2.0 there is no longer the “+50 to sweeten the deal”, otherwise it would be clearly abusive generation of reputation). I have currently no opinion about that (it just seems strange), but I want to put it on the table. I think it is not the essential point that he chose these particular questions (that was probably just a joke). Now he has added bounties to questions he had answered himself.
Quoting Dev Null:
A suggestion/request/plea: If you want to dump reputation: vote for this answer and then either voters can flag it out of existence and/or I will ask the moderators to delete the account. You can (I think) also give bounties to yourself, which is perhaps a better way to dispose of excess points. (If you accept, I will also answer your other bounty questions.)
See previous answer. (This account to be deleted, feel free to flag as spam.)
He wants to loose his reputation? Frictionless Jellyfish? Are you reading this?
@Joseph van Name I do not doubt that. However, that is off-topic. I am sorry that I have started that.
@Andy:
I never meant to suggest that there is some fowl play, but two points are to be considered:
Just for the record, in general I do not find Frictionless Jellfish's action on MO inscrutable. In fact, most of the time they seem to make quite a bit of sense to me. Also, they left one of the in my opinion most to the point comments ever on meta (this meta). It might only look look strange, because in certain ways the site is so stange that normal behavior starts to look strange. :-)
Do not take this comment too seriosly either please. But in my opinion, (more) serious on the content, and (more) playful on the rest would be a good way to develop (alas it seems rather the opposite direction is taken).
@grp: I have active recollection of this incident but unfortunantely did not see everyhing in full detail and thus did not get involved then (also this was the terrible time of the ABC question, so I really did not need additional involvement in anything). There might have been a misunderstanding at the root but you said "Clearly your notion of being insulted differs from my notion, and likely differs from commonly accepted notions as well." While it is completely clear that one can take what Larry Freeman wrote (in earlier versions) the wrong way and find it insulting or at least extremely annoying. The argument was not "not complete"; of course it was not spelled out in detail, but then the entire thing is sort of off-topic, and completely so if it was not clear based on the hint. Now, I think Larry Freeman actually wanted to be modest, but one can also take this very easily differently.
Perhaps an over-reaction, but perfectly understandable.
@grp: since you seem to be concerned the conversation does not progress quickly enough, for one thing, you accused FJ of "derisive comments" and "Inappropriate behaviour." (The original word slander feels too strong, but then tis was corrected and it is an accusation, or what else is this.) In addition I find it sort of odd you have an issue with the edit, which was clearly marked as such, thus not leaving your comment look strange. (If it were not marked I could see a potential problem as I think revisions are not directly, or at all, accessible here.)
I have not been paying close attention to the original issue, but for what it's worth I agree with Michael Greinecker that impersonating another user, especially a non-anonymous user, is a serious offense. More serious (in my opinion) than ad hominem attacks or general impoliteness.
I'm closing this since whatever happens next shouldn't happen here.
1 to 28 of 28