32

With regard to Gerhard's response -- which I agree with -- I see a number of things problematic in some of the behavior taking place in the present circumstances. I have no doubt that behind these numerous accounts is only a very small group of humans, and there's a very good chance it's just one. In other words, I am finding very clear evidence, using the ...


9

Do(es)n’t said user(s) simply exploit the loophole once detected by @MattF. (newly created accounts can spend the association bonus on bounties), and wouldn’t that part be solved by following his then-suggestion (make the “set bounties” privilege higher than 101)?


9

I believe that I can give a partial answer to your question. Looking at some of the profiles that you have listed, they seem to be all unregistered users. I used to do something similar (but with only 4-5 names) in 2012, at my beginnings on MO: not in bad faith, but because I was viewing my asking questions on MO as only a temporary thing. Plus, I was ...


6

I think it is reasonable to be concerned, if only for the fact that we do not know what the ramifications of this behaviour are. However, I think it is better to describe the behaviour and call out what might be problematic about the behaviour. Right now, it seems we are getting OK to good quality material for the forum, and we have the ability to improve ...


4

When looking at users tab you can choose what to display - reputation, editors, voters, new users, moderators. And you can also use period on which you want to concentrate. (I am not really sure which period is chosen by default if you do not change anything.) If you display reputation for week, month, etc., it is displayed as negative if the reputation ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible