LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
parent
  • cmagnificent
    +4

    At which point they would be in violation of the site's policy against harassment or abusive language and would get banned. I would have no issue with the account publicly tied to the down vote and the reason for the down vote.

    • Idontmindturtle
      +4

      That's cool, but it means an unpaid admin team devoting and additional 188 hours (slightly exaggerated) per person per day to follow up on new requests of mean private messages being sent. Then you also get people signing up fake accounts sending harassment messages from those, then you ban that account and the account that invited them but then it turns out that a stranger gave them the account, and now a stranger is penalised for good will. You want to put in the most effective policies that require the least work to implement and police.

    • cmagnificent
      +5
      @Idontmindturtle -

      Okay fair enough. I realized I was kind of oversimplifying it as I was posting it. Do you feel that a mandatory reason of the down vote, with the reason remaining anonymous would fit the criteria of effective and least work to implement that satisfied the base concern?

    • Idontmindturtle (edited 3 years ago)
      +4
      @cmagnificent -

      I don't, only because mandatory submissions tend to result in junk data being received that could otherwise be useful.

      The only other suggestion based around tenure I could give would be to give people unlimited downvotes, but scale their downvote percentage. e.g. you are allowed 2 downvotes a day because you have been here 5 minutes, but you have downvoted 100 posts, so each post is downvoted .02. This might/would require a significant change in the backend, as well as changing data types to data types that retain more data. It wouldn't change the behaviour of people downvoting but it would change the outcome. I don't know if you can change the mentality of peoples perception on what a downvote should be used for. Considering the imminent mass migration that is coming/taking place (myself included), trying to change the behaviour might be like trying to stop a ship sinking by removing water with a single bucket.

      Edit: Reddit still has the same rules, downvote based on whether or not something adds to the discussion... Most people completely ignore it there, I can't see why they would respect the rule here.