Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
You're right, of course. But my votes are bound to an unspoken gentlemen's agreement with the contributor.

??????     You say I'm right but you still vote yes to this incorrect contribution?

Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
You're right, of course. But my votes are bound to an unspoken gentlemen's agreement with the contributor.

??????     You say I'm right but you still vote yes to this incorrect contribution?

I, too, am shocked and confused by this.  Either you vote per the rules, and for correct data, or you don't.  If you don't, then you shouldn't vote.  If you are going to admit that you don't, your voting privileges should be suspended.

Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:

I came to this pleasant place, far from any site, in search of a peaceful life. But soon after I arrived, I realized, I was not alone. I have always had, since the day I registered here, a gentle understanding with the users, who lived beyond my borders. I do not stray into their contributions, they do not come to mine. It is a truce.

Let the bad color not be seen.
It attracts them.

Man, please contact your doctor....

Agree with the Martian.

Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
You're right, of course. But my votes are bound to an unspoken gentlemen's agreement with the contributor.

??????     You say I'm right but you still vote yes to this incorrect contribution?

I, too, am shocked and confused by this.  Either you vote per the rules, and for correct data, or you don't.  If you don't, then you shouldn't vote.  If you are going to admit that you don't, your voting privileges should be suspended.

No votes aren't good for the atmosphere.

'No' votes aren't about atmosphere, they are about correct data...per the rules.  If you can't bring yourself to vote 'no', then vote neutral as a 'yes' vote, to data which violates the Contribution Rules is not allowed.  Not that it really matters.  If you regularly 'rubber stamp' contributions, your votes end up being meaningless.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:

Quote:
No votes aren't good for the atmosphere.

'No' votes aren't about atmosphere, they are about correct data...per the rules.  If you can't bring yourself to vote 'no', then vote neutral as a 'yes' vote, to data which violates the Contribution Rules is not allowed.  Not that it really matters.  If you regularly 'rubber stamp' contributions, your votes end up being meaningless.

Only that it is exactly the other way around.

Recently I voted against a contribution, because the very same change was already pending. Alone against how many, 20, 25 yes votes. No reviewer in the world would have decided to decline the submission, you know it.

My only luck was that in this case the contributor is a man of truthfulness and honor and withdrew his contribution, thank you for that. Otherwise Invelos would have degraded my reputation.

No votes are much too risky. The fundamental flaw is that it doesn't matter if your vote is right or wrong. You have to match the reviewer's decision, nothing else matters. With a no vote you stake your reputation.

That is not true at all... I always vote per the rules... voting no for anything at all that is wrong or against the rules... and I seem to have a very good voting reputation. There has been many times I was the only no vote and it got declined because my no vote was correct per the rules.

Sure there has been several times it went through anyway do to the screeners feeling there was enough correct to make it worth passing through anyway. But my votes always seemed to be very strong non-the-less.

Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
Only that it is exactly the other way around.

Recently I voted against a contribution, because the very same change was already pending. Alone against how many, 20, 25 yes votes. No reviewer in the world would have decided to decline the submission, you know it.

Please don't presume to tell me what I know.  I have been the sole 'no' vote on a contribution and have seen it declined so, yes, it does happen.  Does it happen in every case?  No, but that isn't my concern.  My only concern is that I vote according to the rules...otherwise, why vote?

Quote:
No votes are much too risky. The fundamental flaw is that it doesn't matter if your vote is right or wrong. You have to match the reviewer's decision, nothing else matters. With a no vote you stake your reputation.

I don't think you understand how the vote reputation works.  It's those people who always vote 'yes', or always vote 'no', who's reputation is hurt.  Ken has stated that those people are the ones whose votes mean less.  The occasional 'no' vote, on a contribution that is accepted, will not hurt your reputation.

Beyond that, you are acting like your only choices are 'yes' or 'no'...which isn't the case.  If you can't bring yourself to vote 'no', why not vote neutral?  Why support an incorrect change?  That's the part that has always confused me...not just about you, but about all rubber stampers.