The problem that I see with downvotes being used as a form of disagreement is that it could eventually turn different tribes into echo chambers due to only popular opinion staying up at the top.
This is a problem I've had over on Reddit. Discussion not wanted by the hive mind goes to -5 and hidden from view while discussion that is pro whatever the subject climbs. I've often thought that if a username could be tied to a down vote even if only seen by moderators and staff it could be used to remove habitual abusers. I don't know if that's possible, or even the right answer, but it was abused so often that there were some communities that I just stopped participating in because even though I was very active in that community outside of Reddit I could never say a word in the related sub on Reddit without it becoming hidden from view. This becomes a real issue when you go negative Karma (which happened to me more than once) and you can no longer even participate because at that point you're required to wait 8 minutes between posting comments, it completely eliminates participation because status quo.
I definitely get what you're saying, and I agree that I don't like the idea of downvotes being used for disagreement. But ultimately that's how people are going to use them, no matter what anyone else wants. At least that's how it's been in every community I've been apart of that had downvote-type functionality.
I really don't know of an example where this is not the case; whether downvotes are enabled or not. In fact I would argue that communities who disable downvotes, or otherwise respect the rule that they are only used for reporting bad content, are some of the biggest echo chambers around.
The problem that I see with downvotes being used as a form of disagreement is that it could eventually turn different tribes into echo chambers due to only popular opinion staying up at the top.
This is a problem I've had over on Reddit. Discussion not wanted by the hive mind goes to -5 and hidden from view while discussion that is pro whatever the subject climbs. I've often thought that if a username could be tied to a down vote even if only seen by moderators and staff it could be used to remove habitual abusers. I don't know if that's possible, or even the right answer, but it was abused so often that there were some communities that I just stopped participating in because even though I was very active in that community outside of Reddit I could never say a word in the related sub on Reddit without it becoming hidden from view. This becomes a real issue when you go negative Karma (which happened to me more than once) and you can no longer even participate because at that point you're required to wait 8 minutes between posting comments, it completely eliminates participation because status quo.
I definitely get what you're saying, and I agree that I don't like the idea of downvotes being used for disagreement. But ultimately that's how people are going to use them, no matter what anyone else wants. At least that's how it's been in every community I've been apart of that had downvote-type functionality.
I really don't know of an example where this is not the case; whether downvotes are enabled or not. In fact I would argue that communities who disable downvotes, or otherwise respect the rule that they are only used for reporting bad content, are some of the biggest echo chambers around.
But that's what /u/dh0271 is saying, isn't it?