Oh, okay. I still think we want to disincentivise downvoting though.
##Pros
Users only downvote content they feel strong displeasure towards.
Karma assassination via sockpuppets becomes impossible, and targeted karma attacks through your main account because you dislike a user becomes very costly.
Moderation of downvoting behaviour would be vastly reduced as users downvote less, and only on content they have strong feelings towards.
#Cons
There are much less downvotes.
I don’t think downvotes should be costly. On StackExchange mediocre content can get a high score if it relates to a popular topic. Given that this website has the goal of filtering content in a way that allows people who only want to read a subset to read the high quality posts downvotes of medicore content as useful information.
I think the first con is a feature and not a bug; it is not clear to me that more downvotes are intrinsically beneficial. The second point is valid criticism and I think we need to way the benefit of the downvotes against their cost.
I suggest users lose 40% of the karma they deduct (since you want to give different users different weights). For example, if you downvote someone, they lose 5 karma, but you lose 2 karma.
I’m not opposed to downvote limits, but I think they need to not be too low. There are situations where I am more likely to downvote many things just because I am more heavily moderating. For example, on comments on my own post I care more and am more likely to both upvote and downvote whereas other times I might just not care that much.
“How does this incentivise downvoting?”
Sorry, my bad. I wanted to write “disincentivize”, but failed. I guess it’s a warning against using big words.
Oh, okay. I still think we want to disincentivise downvoting though.
##Pros
Users only downvote content they feel strong displeasure towards.
Karma assassination via sockpuppets becomes impossible, and targeted karma attacks through your main account because you dislike a user becomes very costly.
Moderation of downvoting behaviour would be vastly reduced as users downvote less, and only on content they have strong feelings towards.
#Cons
There are much less downvotes.
I don’t think downvotes should be costly. On StackExchange mediocre content can get a high score if it relates to a popular topic.
Given that this website has the goal of filtering content in a way that allows people who only want to read a subset to read the high quality posts downvotes of medicore content as useful information.
I think the first con is a feature and not a bug; it is not clear to me that more downvotes are intrinsically beneficial. The second point is valid criticism and I think we need to way the benefit of the downvotes against their cost.
I suggest users lose 40% of the karma they deduct (since you want to give different users different weights). For example, if you downvote someone, they lose 5 karma, but you lose 2 karma.
How about the boring simplicity of having downvote limits? Maybe something around one downvote/24 hours—not cumulative.
If you’re feeling generous, maybe add a downvote/24 hours per 1000 karma, with a maximum or 5 downvotes/24 hours.
I’m not opposed to downvote limits, but I think they need to not be too low. There are situations where I am more likely to downvote many things just because I am more heavily moderating. For example, on comments on my own post I care more and am more likely to both upvote and downvote whereas other times I might just not care that much.
This is a solution as well; it is not clear to me though, that it is better than the solution I proposed.