zlacker

>>Anon84+(OP)
Downvotes are problematic, because even the best people can't always be trusted to use them correctly. A downvote should be reserved for something offtopic, evil, mean, etc., but too often a downvote simply means "I disagree".

>>jhickn+i3
And yet we trust these very same people with upvotes?

I agree the potential for damage is much higher with downvotes, but there's an asymmetry there.

The trick is to make downvotes cost a little bit of karma, IMO. And while I'm on the topic, upvotes shouldn't be as free as they are, either.

>>coding+x3
What's the asymmetry? You're begging the question. Bad upvotes mean too many people see something. Bad downvotes mean not enough people see it. The latter is worse than the former. So only one of the features is supported. This is a simpler approach than turning karma into a currency to spend on suppressing things people disagree with.

Having said that, the 2-1 downvote scheme you proposed does put some of us within spitting distance of taking nickb down to zero, so I support it wholeheartedly.

>>tptace+y6
> This is a simpler approach

Having a secret cabal of editors, whose behavior and rules are not documented, is simpler than spending karma to vote against things? Really?