4
$\begingroup$

Today I destroyed the account of a user who openly admitted that the account was created as a throwaway account because they knew their question would attract negative votes.

Creating such an account is the wrong course of action and is to be discouraged.

I'm wondering what the right course of action would be for such a user: they know they have a question, they know that it's DSP-related, but they also know that their current formulation will attract negative votes.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Is the help center's How to Ask good enough for the starter? The problem is, there's no good way for a 1-rep user to get input from the community before they post their question; 5-rep is needed to post on meta and 20-rep for chatting. $\endgroup$ – Andrew T. Sep 4 '17 at 13:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AndrewT. For the case that prompted this question, the user's main account seems to have had quite enough reputation to post anywhere or chat. Let me review the How to Ask and see whether it needs improving. Thanks for the pointer! $\endgroup$ – Peter K. Sep 4 '17 at 14:12
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Did you understand the psychology/motivation of writing a question attracting negative vote? $\endgroup$ – Laurent Duval Sep 9 '17 at 17:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ideally, down-voters should explain the reason for the downvote, and remove the downvote when the question is updated with their feedback. That rarely happens, though. $\endgroup$ – MBaz Sep 11 '17 at 13:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MBaz Yes, that's an issue... especially new posters don't generally have a clear idea of what's wrong with their post unless they're told. When I close a post on the "First Post" review queue, I try to give this feedback... unless the close reason is explicit (e.g. this is an SO question; this is asking for code written to a specification; etc). $\endgroup$ – Peter K. Sep 11 '17 at 14:04
1
$\begingroup$

Does an "on hold" version exist for account? If such an account could be frozen (i.e. no more actions, no answers to that owner, etc.), it could be possible to have discussions with him, pointing him to "nicer rules".

This leaves to the owner the possibility to rephrase, or ultimately delete his own account. Or doing so automatically after some period of time.

I understand the pain of ghost accounts, however I have difficulties "suppressing" even a virtual presence, while freezing it seems less harmful to me. Leave people the opportunity to modify their behavior.


In addition to destroy there is also a suspend option:

enter image description here

although these are not available for users with more than 500 reputation.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Laurent, there is a way to put a stop on the account for a given period. I think this is probably the best approach. Thank-you for the suggestion! $\endgroup$ – Peter K. Sep 11 '17 at 19:10
  • $\begingroup$ I was not aware of that. Sounds like a clean option $\endgroup$ – Laurent Duval Sep 11 '17 at 19:14
5
$\begingroup$

i wud suggest not deliberately mispelling werds and not misusing capital letters and case.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There's no "ha-ha" available here, so have a +1 instead. :-) $\endgroup$ – Peter K. Sep 11 '17 at 14:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ yeah, this sucky Stack Exchange doesn't have Ha-Ha. doesn't have FarmVille either. yet it is still able to waste a lot of our time. $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Sep 11 '17 at 17:40
  • $\begingroup$ I got over Farmville once my kids grew out of it. :-) Funnily enough I got into Clash of Clans because of them, but I kept with it after they moved on to other games. $\endgroup$ – Peter K. Sep 11 '17 at 17:53
  • $\begingroup$ yU probablee mYs pelt kn0t $\endgroup$ – Laurent Duval Sep 11 '17 at 18:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .