A policy of downvoting posts that you disagree with will, over time, generate a “Unison” culture, driving away / evaporatively cooling dissent.
What do you think downvotes are for? It’s just a number, it’s not an insult.
(Now, if you want to suggest that perhaps I shouldn’t announce a downvote when replying with objections, perhaps I could be convinced of that. I think I’d appreciate a downvote-with-explanation more than a silent downvote.)
but you’d have 40k to make up the lost team productivity.
What do you think downvotes are for? It’s just a number, it’s not an insult.
Downvotes are for maintaining the quality of the conversations, not expressing agreement or disagreement. No matter what someone’s opinion is, as long as its incorrectness would not be made evident by reading the sequences, downvotes should only express disapproval of the quality of the argument, not the conclusion. In a case like this, no argument for the opinion that you disapprove of was made. Unless he refused to acknowledge the substance of your disagreement, which was not the case here, no downvote was warranted.
What do you think downvotes are for? It’s just a number, it’s not an insult.
(Now, if you want to suggest that perhaps I shouldn’t announce a downvote when replying with objections, perhaps I could be convinced of that. I think I’d appreciate a downvote-with-explanation more than a silent downvote.)
The man-month is mythical.
Downvotes are for maintaining the quality of the conversations, not expressing agreement or disagreement. No matter what someone’s opinion is, as long as its incorrectness would not be made evident by reading the sequences, downvotes should only express disapproval of the quality of the argument, not the conclusion. In a case like this, no argument for the opinion that you disapprove of was made. Unless he refused to acknowledge the substance of your disagreement, which was not the case here, no downvote was warranted.