Negative Reputation

[Mike Fleming]

I have to say I really don't like this feature.  I understand why it's a part of the forum functions.   On many sites people's emotions get high and it things can turn into a war of words with some people just looking to agitate others all the time.  But is that what FDR is really about?   People do things like that often because they have some personal problems and need to vent.  It seems to me like we understand these to some extent and have an opportunity to be empathetic to such people.  I know there are times when I've gone looking for a fight on forums so I think I get it to some extent.

 

Just a thought.  Someone could end up with a negative rep not entirely fairly and end up thinking it's just not worth it, when they may have had good contributions to make.

[LovePrevails]

I agree it serves no purpose but to turn the board into a popularity contesst

 

1) it discorages people from posting unpopuar views , which makes the community less self-reflective

2) it doesn't provide any useful information on why the post is being -1'd

3) it encourgages people to -1 others for negative feedback instead of giving it to them in the form of writing

(I have seen many posts get -1 and no corrections or follow up posts)

 

I'm sure I could think of most points, but this isn't school so why are we getting graded on our posts?

 

If you want to leave a feedback/reputation comment it shold be mandatory to fill in why you are -1ing the other user

that may be useful

 

if people don't use that function properly I'd remove it entirely, it's unnecessary

[Wesley]

I think that justification should be given for -1 that the poster could look at. Even better, it might be good if everyone can look at it which people who disagreed could vote someone up out of unjustly negative territory.

 

I also think that downvoting a generally positive post can be done to a certain point, but if it is done too many times then voting privileges can be temporarily or permanently removed based on how often this action happens.

 

Thus, the system can be self regulating by which people look at a negative post and can override an unjustly negative vote. If done a few times, the the voter will get an increasing duration of loss of voting ability.

 

No idea how much of this is feasible, but it would remove modding and appealing and such by allowing the person who was negatively voted to appeal to other raters in a sense.

[_LiveFree_]

I think it's a good idea for a community to have a built in reputation mechanism. However, I also think that maybe the rep system here needs a bit of adjusting. It seems to me that people who have donated more are far less likely to abuse the rep system. Why not make it available to only gold or diamond donators and up? This would add a lot more credibility to reputation. It would also reduce the amount of undue negative and positive rep accumulation. 

[ThomasDoubts]

I was a bit annoyed that I recieved my only negative vote for a statement of facts. 

 

I don't know how technically feasible it would be, but I was thinking it would be interesting to have a scale to the voting.  For instance, +.5, -.25, +.73.  I haven't yet donated, so it might not be my place to weigh in, but often times I have mixed feelings about a post.  I would be hesitant to upvote something I largely agreed with if it also had something I considered to be unsupportable.  I think more information would be provided if you could give decimal or percentage votes ranging from -1,1.  Just because you don't fully support or reject a post, doesn't mean it's without value.  I think this would also encourage more active voting.  However, if you did it, you'd have to include a measure of the average value/vote to have any meaningful data.  You could go wild; average positive votes, average negative votes, number of positive, number of negative, profiles of each voter with the statistics on their voting record, the whole nine yards. 

 

Again, I have no idea how feasible or time consuming this would be, just a thought.  There's always a way to get more accurate or extensive data, which I always find interesting.  I suppose it comes down to the time/energy/practicality of implementing such a system.

[Think Free]

Based on how the rep system works, I would have assumed that negative votes were for things like spam. Instead, it seems like people get downvoted a lot simply for (stubbornly and irrationally) arguing for unpopular views. But people who stubbornly and irrationally argue for popular views don't get downvotes. So it seems like, in effect, it's a way of censoring unpopular views. Here's a thought on a way that might work well:

 

Users and posts receive upvotes and downvotes individually. This way users don't get long-term consequences for making unpopular posts. For individual up and downvotes, the vote has to be accompanied with a comment, and it shows up on the users profile. The individuals overall personal up/downvotes all also displayed next to their name. Only really low votes on a post hide it. The user's personal up and downvotes don't hide any of their posts.

 

EDIT: Another less radical system would be to limit the downvotes people can give to be equal to the number of upvotes they've given. This would probably just encourage upvote inflating, but it might encourage people to try thinking about what posts are good and make them a little more sparing with their limited downvotes.

[Wesley]

How about when you click downvote, it just lists possible categories for downvoting which may include spam, ad hominem, repetitive, vulgar, and maybe a few others. Thus "I don't like the opinion of this person" is discouraged as a reason for downvoting.

[Think Free]

How about when you click downvote, it just lists possible categories for downvoting which may include spam, ad hominem, repetitive, vulgar, and maybe a few others. Thus "I don't like the opinion of this person" is discouraged as a reason for downvoting.

 

One option should be "This is BS." But selecting that option should only make it looks like they've received a downvote to the person voting. Nobody should be told about this hidden feature.

[Kevin Beal]

Personally, downvotes hurt my feelings and cause a tiny bit of anxiety. I got a little resentful even. Why does nobody who gets downvoted talk about this? Why is it always about how it's like some sort of petty thing that no one should do without lots of evidence or argument to back it up? Am I wrong, are you completely detached emotionally, and it's simply about what is right?

 

Personally, I think the negative vote should be for everything you guys think is wrong and stupid and bad. The reputation system is a kind of feedback that says how people take what you said, not the rightness or irrationality of your post. It is a kind of popularity contest, and that doesn't have to be a bad thing. What it is is simply more information.

 

I think that you ought to simply trust people to use it the way they feel it ought be used and to argue that they ought use it differently if you disagree, rather than change it as a matter of policy. Trust people to listen and appeal to their shared values. If you don't have shared values with the community, then why would you be here in the first place? Isn't the whole point to try out these ideas and be consistent about them and to connect with other people who share your values?

 

Getting a negative vote is a learning opportunity.

 

Add*

And if it's the case that somebody who dislikes the downvote feature on the basis that not enough argument was made, was the person who downvoted Nathan, then I would appeal to the value you place in UPB and rational consistency to tell him what you thought was worth that negative vote.

 

It would be nice if everyone who watched one of Stef's videos gave him a rational explanation as to why they thought the video deserved the downvote, but they don't. In this instance we can technically change the reality of the situation by demanding that JamesP hack the IPBoards software to support the decision you guys come to, but I personally don't want that and this post is my reason why. Also it may be a lot of his time invested in something that turns out to not be that great to begin with.

 

Let's use compelling arguments, appeals to shared values, RTR if the chance presents itself and make the kind of community that is worthy of the trust to use the downvote the way you think it ought be used. Create a community through honest exchange of ideas rather than by policy. It's anarchy, and that's a wonderful thing.

[Think Free]

Personally, I've received one downvote and one upvote, to my knowledge, so this is not about how votes make me feel. (It's the lack of upvotes that hurts my feelings  .) Rather, I see other people getting downvoted so I have to click on all their posts to read them, and I wonder if votes are being used in a constructive manner. There are two ways to handle the problem, of course. One is to change the system and the other is to change the culture of voting. However, changing the culture of voting won't overcome the limitations in the system itself. It's possible that the system, as designed, just isn't very useful.

[Kevin Beal]

One is to change the system and the other is to change the culture of voting. However, changing the culture of voting won't overcome the limitations in the system itself.

What system are you talking about specifically and in what respect exactly is it a limitation? Because some things are a fact of life. Our being bound by gravity is a limitation, our short lives are a limitation, scarcity of resources is a limitation. People downvoting posts for bad reasons is a limitation?

[Think Free]

What system are you talking about specifically and in what respect exactly is it a limitation? Because some things are a fact of life. Our being bound by gravity is a limitation, our short lives are a limitation, scarcity of resources is a limitation. People downvoting posts for bad reasons is a limitation?

 

The system where you can downvote posts only, without comment, and the total accrues to the users account and makes his posts get hidden. That's the system, and it has limitations, a few of which I just mentioned.

 

EDIT: These are, of course, not a fact of life but a fact of the current system, which could be changed, but shouldn't necessarily.

[Kevin Beal]

EDIT: These are, of course, not a fact of life but a fact of the current system, which could be changed, but shouldn't necessarily.

People having bad standards for their downvotes is not a system to be changed technologically though. All that is being done is changing their incentives or preventing them expressing their dislike in that way.

 

And I don't think that I agree that there is a culture to be changed. There aren't that many people who have the ability to downvote, and you actually can address them all on a personal level without much effort. It's not like larger society or anything.

[TheRobin]

Idk, I think it might mostly be that the voting is done anonymously. Like, if I get a downvote and I knew it was from someone I have little respect for anyway, then I can take that as a compliment, however if I get downvoted from someone I respect, I then at least have the option to send a pm and inquire.Also I think the idea that unpopular views get downvoted is probably not quite accurate. I have often downvoted posts, but only due to the posts either being insulting or so full of sophistry it wasn't worth replying. While there's certainly a correlation between having different views and downvoting I'd say that's mostly because there's also a strong correlation between different views and people being unable to post them in a reasoned manner. And respond to critic in a reasoned manner.

[JamesP]

I have to say I really don't like this feature.  I understand why it's a part of the forum functions.   On many sites people's emotions get high and it things can turn into a war of words with some people just looking to agitate others all the time.  But is that what FDR is really about?   People do things like that often because they have some personal problems and need to vent.  It seems to me like we understand these to some extent and have an opportunity to be empathetic to such people.  I know there are times when I've gone looking for a fight on forums so I think I get it to some extent.

 

Just a thought.  Someone could end up with a negative rep not entirely fairly and end up thinking it's just not worth it, when they may have had good contributions to make.

 

I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that the individuals who are interested in not acting out are going to be affected by negative reputation in a positive manner, while those who don't care about a negative reputation will press forward without taking a step back to examine their behavior.  In this way, negative reputation has the desired effect: people who are interested in a positive rep will take steps to maintain it, while people who don't care about their reputation will eventually find themselves ostracized.

 

Do you have any instances of people who have been crowd-modded down unfairly?  I can look into it.

 

Regarding adding reasons to the reputation system, it's been suggested before but I haven't had the chance to look into it.  I'm not sure what it would add, especially since the person who posted can always ask for feedback on why they got downvoted.

 

Regarding changing the votes to not be anonymous (who voted what is stored, so the data is all there), I don't see any particular problem with that, though I am ambivalent about whether that should be made 100% open.  That said, eBay feedback is non-anonymous--it would actually be counter-productive for eBay feedback to be anonymous.  Perhaps the same can be said here.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Regarding changing the votes to not be anonymous (who voted what is stored, so the data is all there), I don't see any particular problem with that, though I am ambivalent about whether that should be made 100% open.  That said, eBay feedback is non-anonymous--it would actually be counter-productive for eBay feedback to be anonymous.  Perhaps the same can be said here.

 

Did you know the reputation system is only anonymous when logged in? If you do not log in and click on a rep in a post it will show which members gave rep. Sounds like that was not the intended design.

[Wesley]

Regarding changing the votes to not be anonymous (who voted what is stored, so the data is all there), I don't see any particular problem with that, though I am ambivalent about whether that should be made 100% open.  That said, eBay feedback is non-anonymous--it would actually be counter-productive for eBay feedback to be anonymous.  Perhaps the same can be said here.

If this is done, I at least would like to be able to change my vote and possibly neutralize my vote. At least one time that I remember I accidentally downvoted a post (that I meant to upvote, which was sad) and even so I think that after deliberation someone may find that they were a little quick on the downvote trigger, which has also happened at least once that I remember and there was a thread where someone realized they downvoted a little too quickly.

 

Personally, I am being more convinced that it is fine the way it is.

[JamesP]

Did you know the reputation sysytem is only anonymous when logged in? If you do not log in and click on a rep in a post it will show which members gave rep. Sounds like that was not the intended design.

 

Ha! That is almost the opposite of what was intended.

If this is done, I at least would like to be able to change my vote and possibly neutralize my vote. At least one time that I remember I accidentally downvoted a post (that I meant to upvote, which was sad) and even so I think that after deliberation someone may find that they were a little quick on the downvote trigger, which has also happened at least once that I remember and there was a thread where someone realized they downvoted a little too quickly.

 

Personally, I am being more convinced that it is fine the way it is.

 

I was digging around in the settings just now, and it looks like there isn't a setting to allow you to change your vote, but that might just be a template thing.  That may be easy, or it may be very painful.  I'll put it on the list

[Kevin Beal]

It's probably unfounded paranoia, but I've gotten more downvotes since posting in this thread than all of the time this feature has been on the boards.

 

I must admit that it would be nice to hear an explanation for the votes. Or to see if it's like one guy who has a grudge or something.

 

I think I wasn't completely right when I said that negative votes are a learning opportunity. It helps me see how I react to negative criticism, but it doesn't help very much to see what exactly I said that prompted the vote. I can come up with a story that it's because I wasn't [x] enough or that it's just some petty person, but it would be nice to know what prompted it.

 

It is interesting to me how much the votes affect me, when maybe they shouldn't. I want to be liked and to know that something I've said is helpful to someone. But at the same time, it's text based, relatively short posts where you get a very incomplete picture of a person, and there's often a lot of it up for interpretation.

 

The votes do offer me some credibility since I have a decent amount of them, as does the PK badge (I assume), and that gives me a little extra confidence that what I'm saying is going to be taken seriously. And isn't that what everyone wants? To be taken seriously?

 

That would explain some of my own feelings about it, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's probably the most common reaction for people on the boards to negative votes: triggering that resentment about not being taken seriously, either because of a family history, or public school or whatever it was.

 

I have a desire for people to explain their dislike to me and even a little desire to get them back somehow, and downvote their posts or something. I have the capacity for sadism myself and don't feel 100% on some of the votes (positive or negative) that I've made. So there's a blind spot for me that is prime for projection.

 

And if it's difficult for me to deal with this kind of feedback, then it's probably the same for others. And just like I have a sadistic side, so might others.

 

Is it really just me?

[LovePrevails]

I now agree with reputation since checking to find out I have +14.

[Mike Fleming]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

 

I think positive feedback is very valuable.  I used to frequent another forum where basically it just had a thanks system.  If you appreciated/agreed with a post it would show your name at the bottom eg. the following users said thank you for this post : user1, user2, etc  When I saw people thanking a post that I had made it made me feel good that I had posted something of value, especially when it was someone who I respected.   Not being anonymous, you could tell whether it was just a habitual thanker or someone who used their thanks more sparingly.  It also indicates to other readers that many people thought this was a good post.  There was no negative feedback on this forum.  

 

I think the report button is should be generally used for people who are abusing the forum.   Giving people negative reputation feels uneasy to me and indeed feels like it is just a popularity contest at school. If I start posting on determinism, which isn't popular here, am I going to get a bunch of downvotes just because most people here are free willers.?

[ThomasDoubts]

 If I start posting on determinism, which isn't popular here, am I going to get a bunch of downvotes just because most people here are free willers.?

 

 

Not if you make a convincing or rational argument.  Perhaps not, if you introduce a new argument.

 

If you restate arguments that have been refuted, then yeah, probably. 

[Mike Fleming]

Not if you make a convincing or rational argument.  Perhaps not, if you introduce a new argument.

 

If you restate arguments that have been refuted, then yeah, probably. 

 

Whether or not you make a rational argument or not can be very much in the eye of the beholder.  Not everyone's standards are the same.  And does someone deserve to get downvoted the instant they make a bad argument?  Should there not be the chance for the conversation to continue a few posts before they are judged?  And how long should that be?

 

And this is a large board.  How can you know for sure if an argument has been refuted or not?  Maybe the search might find it maybe it won't.

 

EDIT: sorry, while I am thinking about it, why should someone's posts in one thread be judged by what they have said in another by making their posts invisible?  Maybe they are rational in one thread but being punished for irrationality in another thread.

[ThomasDoubts]

Whether or not you make a rational argument or not can be very much in the eye of the beholder.  Not everyone's standards are the same.  And does someone deserve to get downvoted the instant they make a bad argument?  Should there not be the chance for the conversation to continue a few posts before they are judged?  And how long should that be?

 

 

I think the fact that standards for rationality differ is a problem.  I think discussion is useful for figuring out exactly what you believe.  In the case of determinism though, there are boatloads of posts dealing with the debate.  This is Stef's forum, and he closed the topic because he considered it resolved.  If you disagree, you must prove why he is wrong, or why you are right.  I hope I'm not coming off in a "jackassy" way, but it's about the arguments.  I would enjoy reading and considering an innovative approach, but 99 times out of a 100, it's an old argument presented in a new way.  I would be the first to upvote you if I thought you had effectively refuted free will, or proved determinism, but it's a difficult task. 

 

This illicits a thought for me.  If I were to downvote your post, am I downvoting you or your argument?  This is why I brought up the idea of scaled voting earlier.  It's difficult to convey an idea of "A for effort."  How do I downvote what I think is a bad argument, while still being supportive?  How do I upvote good or novel ideas, extended to poor conclusions.  If I were to downvote someone, 9 times outta 10, I feel a justification or explanation would be owed.  Maybe I don't see downvotes as negatively as others.  If I try to deal with a particularly contentious issue over time with dozens of downvotes, but eventually resolve it with an effective solution, I wouldn't care that I had more downvotes.  Hopefully, when I solved the problem, I would get a ton of upvotes, recognizing the achievement. 

I think a lot of the issue lies in intent.  What does a particular voter intend his up/down vote to convey.   If a downvote is a reflection on an argument, I'd expect 99% of the arguments should get a downvote on contentious issues.  They are contentious for a reason.  If you upvote because you like the conclusion, and fail to recognize flawed reasoning, you encourage flawed reasoning.  If you downvote a bad argument, and provide proof of it being a flawed argument, you encourage finding new ways to argue that are consistent with reason and evidence. 

 

I should mention though, if someone isn't making an argument, then I wonder what my criterion would be to vote.  I think it's preferable to upvote as a congratulations for an accomplishment.  If someone makes a breakthrough with the family, or through action makes a positive impact on someone's life, absolutely upvote.  If someone says something abusive, absolutely downvote.  In the middle ground, it can be more difficult to know how I would feel or vote.  I suppose I wouldn't vote in either direction.  As I said earlier, I still have to clear the donation hurdle, so feel free to ignore me ( :

[Guest Exceptionalist]

I think a lot of the issue lies in intent.  What does a particular voter intend his up/down vote to convey.   If a downvote is a reflection on an argument, I'd expect 99% of the arguments should get a downvote on contentious issues.  They are contentious for a reason.  If you upvote because you like the conclusion, and fail to recognize flawed reasoning, you encourage flawed reasoning.  If you downvote a bad argument, and provide proof of it being a flawed argument, you encourage finding new ways to argue that are consistent with reason and evidence.

 

 

The contentiousness cannot be reflected by a digit, neither can the intent or the flaw of anything. You don't encourage critical thinking either ways. I don't know if my conclusion was flawed, the way I made my argument wasn't to someone's liking - contentiousness? - or if it was an emotional knee-jerk reaction.

[Wesley]

Personally, if I see two people arguing and then a quality post gets downvoted, I am much more likely to upvote that post just because they do not deserve the negative rating IMO. I think that others do the same.

 

I have been downvoted as an emotional knee-jerk reaction only to go back later and find the post at +3 or something. Those ratings probably won't stand very long as an unjust rating for something.

[Chisleu]

Right or wrong, I don't like participating with a site that gives me a negative rating. I have done nothing to deserve being hated on.

[Kevin Beal]

Right or wrong, I don't like participating with a site that gives me a negative rating. I have done nothing to deserve being hated on.

To be accurate, it's a post that gets the vote, not members of the forum. I could see your point if it were, but you are not your posts.

 

 

 

If I start posting on determinism, which isn't popular here, am I going to get a bunch of downvotes just because most people here are free willers.?

This is against the forum rules. If someone got downvoted, it could be for that reason, rather than because they are free willers with a grudge against determinist, or whatever the implication is there.

[ThomasDoubts]

The contentiousness cannot be reflected by a digit, neither can the intent or the flaw of anything. You don't encourage critical thinking either ways. I don't know if my conclusion was flawed, the way I made my argument wasn't to someone's liking - contentiousness? - or if it was an emotional knee-jerk reaction.

 

We all agree abuse is immoral.  Once this simple truth is realized, there is little merit in arguing how abuse can be productive.  Thus there is no general contention.  I view an upvote as an agreement with my argument, and a downvote as a rejection of my argument.  I'm trying to think of an example of a contentious issue; maybe animal rights.  It doesn't seem to me that there exists a general concensus here on the treatment of animals.  If you make the argument that eating meat is violates NAP/UPB (which I may or may not agree with) but use poor arguments to reach that conclusion, how can I upvote you?  A contentious issue is one where proof is absent, or acceptance of proof is negligable.  Voting based on an emotional knee-jerk reaction is antithical to FDR.  Ideally, every downvote should carry with it a justification.  Maybe this is where I'm wrong; we should just explain why someone is wrong without downvoting them?  I dunno.  Maybe downvotes should be reserved for "Thou shalt not" offenses.  Again, I think the root problem is an ambiguity towards the meaning of and upvote/downvote/reputation.  Perhaps a sticky thread outlining how voting should be practiced could be helpful. 

 

I suppose a simple question would be, why is a downvote a bad thing?  If FDR is about philosophy, reason, and evidence, then a downvote is simply a general measure of your aptitude at applying those principals.  It is evidence that you have work to do.  I think problems arise when one takes a downvote as an attack, or a disapproval of their existence, or a measure of their "unwelcomeness."  In the realm of argumentation, if you're doing anything creative, "cutting edge", challenging the status quo, etc.; you're likely to fail many times before you succeed, if you ever do.  An upvote is a good way for the community to recognize a good argument, and lend it credibility without posting "yeah, what he said."  Outside of argumentation, I think it's a useful tool for encouraging and supporting individuals that are learning to accept the foundational principals and put them into action in their lives.  I think it's a useful tool for ostracizing abusive people.  Someone with a million upvotes, and no downvotes simply stays within the confines of what the community believes to be true.  I'm reminded of Stef's quote about conforming to the past making you invisible to the future.  There is nothing wrong with this, as the community, by and large, is well grounded in reason and evidence.  It does mean though, you'd be unlikely to create anything new; your focus would be more on catching other people up, and we all know there is plenty of work to be done there!

 

Everyone has a role to play.  If your goal is to "catch people up," you're likely to have many more upvotes than downvotes.  If you're inclined to challenge generally accepted arguments, you're likely to have many more downvotes, but so long as your efforts are well intentioned and and supported with reason and evidence, you shouldn't be unwelcome.  For example, if I assert that we should use "self defense" against the state, and fight violence with violence, I should know going in I'm probably going to get a million downvotes.  I should know, it will take a superb air tight argument to avoid the downvotes.  I should know that patience will quickly wear thin if I reject reason and evidence, and that I carry the burden of proof.  In other words, it's my job to prove to others; not their job to refute assertions. 

[FriendlyHacker]

Every time you downvote, baby Jesus kills a kitten.

[Chisleu]

To be accurate, it's a post that gets the vote, not members of the forum. I could see your point if it were, but you are not your posts.

 

 

I click on your name, I see 100-some and a big green box.

 

I click on my name and I see -1 and a red box.

 

I do own my posts. They are my thoughts put into action by my fingers. It turns me off, but not nearly as much as the thread I started being deleted without someone even trying to contact me. Kinda dumb. Guess I'll find somewhere else to be.

[Mike Fleming]

You are the sum of your posts on the forum.  That's all people know about you, apart from a few personal details like name, location, sex and such.

 

It's similar to the way Stef talked recently about people being their arguments, or something like that.  I'm paraphrasing from memory so it might not be completely correct.  That their arguments aren't seperate from them.

 

I think as well, for me, it is the fact that others are choosing, via the voting system, who gets "ignored".  I think that irks me somewhat as I generally don't ignore anyone and certainly not people who I think have something to contribute even if I do find a few of their posts a little annoying.  

 

As for free will-determinism, I don't see how anyone can say it's resolved when it is still so contentious here and in society at large.  And why should people like myself who didn't get a chance to contribute our thoughts now be censored?   Although, it seems to me that in reality it isn't censored, it's just that some people wish it was.  That should get me at least one downvote.    I'm going for the red!!

[Pepin]

I've noticed that well formed arguments that are wrong tend to get more negative ratings than pretty terrible "arguments". I really don't like this because well formed arguments that actually understand the anarchist perspective are so few, and it ought not be discouraged. Perhaps I am biased in this with having experience on another forum and in real life with people having no ability to comprehend my position, and making it painfully obvious with their arguments.

[wdiaz03]

Personally, if I see two people arguing and then a quality post gets downvoted, I am much more likely to upvote that post just because they do not deserve the negative rating IMO. I think that others do the same.

 

I have been downvoted as an emotional knee-jerk reaction only to go back later and find the post at +3 or something. Those ratings probably won't stand very long as an unjust rating for something.

 

I've seen some of my post get down voted just because that person does not agree with my views, I'm not being abusive. I've noticed the same with other posts with views similar to mine in the same thread even. For now If I come across posts that I suspect have been down voted in this manner I just use my vote to at least make them neutral. I suggest we all do the same, and we can at least control those few individuals that use this feature as a way to censoring others.

[MysterionMuffles]

How about a reputation renewal every month or so? There are some people with 100+ positive reputation and it would take a horribly wrong and offensive message to bring that back to 0, and same with people who have -30 or even lower would have to change drastically to change their methodology. That would also be time consuming to recover on neutral ground.

 

While I agree that downvotes should require some kind of feedback system: there should be a mulitple choice reason with the addition of "other" of course where you have to provide a quotation of what you found offensive and why.

 

But I think overall, if we reset everyone's reputation on some monthly or bi-monthly back to 0, the people who have a horrible rating can get the opportunity to start posting more philosophically. And anyone who has a super high reputation also has the incentive to just continue being awesome.