I have seen advice that you can vote however you want. If centralizing your downvotes is an action that is faced with punishment a vote use is prohibited. Thus I am thinking there is a line drawn in the water on accepted vote policies.
For those that have beef with users and not posts maybe a channel for those could be developed as a voteable user karma (maybe require a reason for user-downvotes?). Mass downvoters go for the posts as a proxy for the user.
For what kinds of legit use is the association between an username and post used for? Could we do without it so you would receive karma from your post but voters can’t use as a basis for their vote? If there is a reason to know the writer and it is to apply different standards to the post, why is the overtly pessimistic attitude off the table?
I have seen advice that you can vote however you want. If centralizing your downvotes is an action that is faced with punishment a vote use is prohibited. Thus I am thinking there is a line drawn in the water on accepted vote policies.
For those that have beef with users and not posts maybe a channel for those could be developed as a voteable user karma (maybe require a reason for user-downvotes?). Mass downvoters go for the posts as a proxy for the user.
For what kinds of legit use is the association between an username and post used for? Could we do without it so you would receive karma from your post but voters can’t use as a basis for their vote? If there is a reason to know the writer and it is to apply different standards to the post, why is the overtly pessimistic attitude off the table?
I guess it was silently assumed that you would read the things, and then vote, not just execute a content-independent voting mechanism.
From other comments, that’s not actually true. You can only downvote 4 times your own karma. I’m guessing few knew that.