<p><pre><code>  &#62; I don't think the intention is "specific votes" as in an
  &#62; editor cherry-picked particular users to ignore.
</code></pre>
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.<p><pre><code>  &#62; Rather, I think they are trying to code logic that will
  &#62; recognize patterns of behavior and ignore users that
  &#62; exhibit that behavior.
</code></pre>
Most likely, yes.<p><pre><code>  &#62; That is tricky stuff, and it's going to get a lot of false
  &#62; positives until they settle on an acceptable set of rules.
</code></pre>
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.<p><pre><code>  &#62; You're really not giving PG and whoever else develops the
  &#62; HN code the benefit of the doubt.
</code></pre>
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.