@dantheman This is an excellent post and to my mind has a dollar value of around $5,000 because it took time, effort, a lot of thought and is the type of conversation that will determine the future of this platform. This is much better than your last post on the topic.
For the rest of this comment I am speaking only to the section "Removing Down Votes from Posts", everything else has me nodding in a agreement.
In my last reply to you, I tried to drive home the fact that the tit for tat downvoting thing was not ok. I likened it to a schoolyard brawl and mentioned that the big difference is that someone could hire Mike Tyson to come in to settle the score.
It is clear you listened to those of us who felt this way and it's clear that you are trying to address our concerns and find balance in the system.
This proposal is better because it removes the ability to enter into that sort of conflict. Unfortunately this proposal is also worse in many ways.
Well written, well thought out, and you're thinking in terms of balance so that's good, but this is unbalanced and here is why...
You're talking about attacking the person rather than the idea.
If I can nullify a person's votes I can nullify their voice. This is going to encourage griefers.
That said, this system would be perfect if the ability to "veto", would be limited to a single posting. So if that's actually what you mean, then I've just spent a lot of time splitting hairs.
However the way this reads, it looks like you're talking about the person in general. I could basically mark a person who is doing a crappy job of voting, and nullify all of their votes. You don't mention a limit there, but it sounds like you mean for the day.
Certainly hope it's not a permanent thing, because that would cause a mass exodus.
There is a cost to nullifying. Although I'm now undecided after reading your point of view, I do think there needs to be a way of revoking the voting rights of bots.
@beanz Bots don't have feelings and aren't going to care. People care though. They make bots because it's easy to make bots and there is a financial incentive. You would need to eliminate the financial incentive but even that wouldn't stop the bots.
Let's say I ALWAYS agree with you beanz, literally you and I are always in agreement, at least to the point that I can find some excuse to upvote you for everything you do.
Maybe we're friends and even if I disagree with you. i want you to have this money, so I upvote you all the time.
How am I any different from a bot that follows you around upvoting everything you say or do?
So what's the difference between me and a bot that does what I tell it to?
@beanz check my blog for more discussion about this topic.