I golf in TI-BASIC (the language that TI-83 and 84 series graphing calculators use), which is an uncommon language, and small even in proportion to the frequency of its use is the number of people in this community who know the details of the language. Therefore, good answers often go unrecognized, and wrong answers are often mistaken for good ones. I feel the need to sort out answers by quality, and use more votes than I otherwise would.
Recently, I have been searching for other answers by language in TI-BASIC. There are several very poor answers by the same user, some of which don't work at all: for example, this answer, which badly misunderstands the spec; this answer, which doesn't come close to working; this answer, which doesn't work and is partially plagiarized; and this answer, which was at +5 despite not working.
I have downvoted about twelve of these, and I honestly believe that they are all of poor quality. I left a comment on almost every one explaining the error in the code. I was flagged for serial downvoting for this behavior; however, I do not see the fault in my actions. I was not acting in revenge, I have never downvoted a TI-BASIC answer that works properly, and I would downvote an answer of similarly poor quality by any user.
When should I vote? suggests downvoting answers that "[make] no sense" or "[a]re wrong (in your opinion".
- Is it correct practice to downvote these answers?
- If so, how should I proceed?
Edit: Geobits brought up downvoting sparingly every few days to circumvent the system; I was caught again with four downvotes and will try again with one.
I don't think serial vote detection needs a complete overhaul, but as a community (since this problem seems to be specific to code golf)
Should we waive serial downvote detection when both of the following are true?
- The vote is on an answer.
- The voter either leaves a comment that has achieved +1, or upvotes a comment by another user who downvoted.
Or could we recommend flagging (for answers that have been pointed out as wrong and not corrected) or some other action instead?