I'm not sure that I understand what is meant here. Could maybe an example be given?

Example: person A is annoyed by something that person B says, so they open up person B's profile and downvote their 10 most recent posts. I've not seen this on Codidact, but I have been the person B on another Q&A network.

Peter Taylor‭ That's already quite a good definition. But of course it can also happen to while browsing through posts person A sees 10 posts of person B and votes on their quality. The difference is here only the looking at profiles step. What is maybe problematic about Codidact is that there is no vote limit and maybe also no serial vote detection system.

Trilarion‭ This help topic mentions a daily voting limit of 30 (default value, might be changed at community level).

Even if a poster does have low-quality posts, I think there is probably more downside to letting people downvote too much rather than not enough. If you downvote more than ... I dunno, 5 times in a row? 10 times? More than 2 standard deviations above average? Some similar metric that is proportionate to daily voting rate? However you measure it, that's probably an indication of a degrading voting behavior, and the community might be improved by putting a cap on the number of consecutive down-votes, or number of downvotes in a day.

Or perhaps rather than limiting the ability to make further downvotes, it might trigger a moderator notification to look at the person's behavior and see if something isn't going well.

whybecause‭ I don't know. Sometimes one just sees low quality content for 5 or 10 times in a row. That can happen. On the other side, upvoting every now and then would be an easy way around your limitations, but not much would be gained. What you probably want is some kind of anomaly detection, i.e. somebody who is not voting like the mainstream and the voting anomaly has an impact on a single user or group of users only. I think that this is a very difficult topic statistically and only obvious cases can easily be detected. I think that the important points are vote limits (on up and downvotes) and maybe attaching a cost to downvotes (but how?).

Trilarion‭ True, and even if it happens, what's the harm in capping the number of downvotes? I've heard that in general, if you can slow down interactions that people have online, and give people time to think and calm down before reacting, it can help them to behave more politely and constructively. Putting a daily cap on downvotes doesn't stop the downvoting from happening, but just from doing it too fast all at once. And especially if a certain limit triggers moderator intervention, then it might actually be a constructive experience for everyone to learn what kind of behavior we are promoting and what kind of behavior we'd like minimized. So I think we're in agreement that these sorts of limitations are helpful and not harmful?