Maybe it's your presumption of malice that's rubbing people the wrong way. Instead of immediately thinking that you are under attack, perhaps a presumption of malfunction would have shown higher regard for people's intentions.
(But then again, given that this is HN, maybe assuming their code isn't bug free is a worse insult? ;-)
As I tried to point out (and obviously failed - you're not the first person to suggest this) the fact that others have in the past said that they have lost the right to vote, and the fact that PG says he tinkers with the question of whether specific votes count, make me believe it's not a bug or other unintended feature.
(ADDED IN EDIT: PG has said: "I'm experimenting with changes to the code that decides which votes count.")
And in some sense I'm content that for some reason and in some way my votes have been deemed irrelevant. I'd just like to know why. More than that, I spend time thinking before I vote. If my vote has no effect, I won't waste that time.
I don't think the intention is "specific votes" as in an editor cherry-picked particular users to ignore. Rather, I think they are trying to code logic that will recognize patterns of behavior and ignore users that exhibit that behavior. That is tricky stuff, and it's going to get a lot of false positives until they settle on an acceptable set of rules.
You're really not giving PG and whoever else develops the HN code the benefit of the doubt.
> I don't think the intention is "specific votes" as in an
> editor cherry-picked particular users to ignore.
I'm sure that's true. They write complex code that tries to identify deprecated behaviours, and then take action based on that. No doubt I could've expressed that point to better reflect what I think. I will look at going back and editing the phrasing - thank you.
> Rather, I think they are trying to code logic that will
> recognize patterns of behavior and ignore users that
> exhibit that behavior.
Most likely, yes.
> That is tricky stuff, and it's going to get a lot of false
> positives until they settle on an acceptable set of rules.
Yes, and no. Yes it's tricky, and yes there will be false positives, but the rate depends on how aggressive they try to be.
> You're really not giving PG and whoever else develops the
> HN code the benefit of the doubt.
I suspect I'm giving them more credit than you give me credit for. This is the sort of thing at which I earn my living, and I really do know how hard automated behavioural analysis can be. I also know that behaviour modification works best when the reinforcement is strongly attached to the behaviour. The problem here is that I have no idea what I've done to have my voting privileges revoked, and that is counter-productive.
(But then again, given that this is HN, maybe assuming their code isn't bug free is a worse insult? ;-)