Skip to main content
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
Source Link

No

Voting already is the community moderation system in action! And down-votes are part of that as much as up votes; or would you also require up-votes getting reviewed?

Unlike voting down on answers, which also causes the voter to lose a point, voting down on questions is free in that regard and encouraged. The Stack Exchange philosophy is that voting on questions in general and even voting down is a good thingTM.

The voting system is also already regulated in a number of ways:

  • The voting downdown is a privilege that needs to be earned, it is not given freely, but requires a certain amount of community participation.
  • One user, one vote (per question and per answer). The community should easily be able to balance out a single discordant vote and commonly does so too.

No

Voting already is the community moderation system in action! And down-votes are part of that as much as up votes; or would you also require up-votes getting reviewed?

Unlike voting down on answers, which also causes the voter to lose a point, voting down on questions is free in that regard and encouraged. The Stack Exchange philosophy is that voting on questions in general and even voting down is a good thingTM.

The voting system is also already regulated in a number of ways:

  • The voting down is a privilege that needs to be earned, it is not given freely, but requires a certain amount of community participation.
  • One user, one vote (per question and per answer). The community should easily be able to balance out a single discordant vote and commonly does so too.

No

Voting already is the community moderation system in action! And down-votes are part of that as much as up votes; or would you also require up-votes getting reviewed?

Unlike voting down on answers, which also causes the voter to lose a point, voting down on questions is free in that regard and encouraged. The Stack Exchange philosophy is that voting on questions in general and even voting down is a good thingTM.

The voting system is also already regulated in a number of ways:

  • The voting down is a privilege that needs to be earned, it is not given freely, but requires a certain amount of community participation.
  • One user, one vote (per question and per answer). The community should easily be able to balance out a single discordant vote and commonly does so too.
deleted 178 characters in body
Source Link
HBruijn Mod
  • 82.5k
  • 25
  • 41

No

Voting already is the community moderation system in action! And down-votes are part of that as much as up votes; or would you also require up-votes getting reviewed?

Unlike voting down on answers (which, which also causes the voter to lose a point) the, voting down on questions is free in that regard and encouraged. The Stack Exchange philosophy is that voting downon questions in general and even voting down is a good thingTM and therefor a down vote on a question does not cost the caster any points. (And getting your question answered is it's main reward, collecting up votes is not the goal there.) Voting in general is good thing and more people should vote more frequently up as well as down!

The voting system is also already regulated in a number of ways:

  • The voting down is a privilege that needs to be earned, it is not given freely, but requires a certain amount of community participation.
  • One user, one vote (per question and per answer). The community should easily be able to balance out a single discordant vote and commonly does so too.

No

Voting already is the community moderation system in action! And down-votes are part of that as much as up votes; or would you also require up-votes getting reviewed?

Unlike voting down on answers (which also causes the voter to lose a point) the Stack Exchange philosophy is that voting down questions is a good thingTM and therefor a down vote on a question does not cost the caster any points. (And getting your question answered is it's main reward, collecting up votes is not the goal there.) Voting in general is good thing and more people should vote more frequently up as well as down!

The voting system is also already regulated in a number of ways:

  • The voting down is a privilege that needs to be earned, it is not given freely, but requires a certain amount of community participation.
  • One user, one vote (per question and per answer). The community should easily be able to balance out a single discordant vote and commonly does so too.

No

Voting already is the community moderation system in action! And down-votes are part of that as much as up votes; or would you also require up-votes getting reviewed?

Unlike voting down on answers, which also causes the voter to lose a point, voting down on questions is free in that regard and encouraged. The Stack Exchange philosophy is that voting on questions in general and even voting down is a good thingTM.

The voting system is also already regulated in a number of ways:

  • The voting down is a privilege that needs to be earned, it is not given freely, but requires a certain amount of community participation.
  • One user, one vote (per question and per answer). The community should easily be able to balance out a single discordant vote and commonly does so too.
added 815 characters in body
Source Link
HBruijn Mod
  • 82.5k
  • 25
  • 41

No

Voting already is the community moderation system in action! And down-votes are part of that as much as up votes; or would you also require up-votes getting reviewed?

Unlike voting down on answers (which also causes the voter to lose a point) the Stack Exchange philosophy is that voting down questions is a good thingTM and therefor a down vote on a question does not cost the caster any points. (And getting your question answered is it's main reward, collecting up votes is not the goal there.) Voting in general is good thing and more people should vote more frequently up as well as down!

The voting system is also already regulated in a number of ways:

  • The voting down is a privilege that needs to be earned, it is not given freely, but requires a certain amount of community participation.
  • One user, one vote (per question and per answer). The community should easily be able to balance out a single discordant vote and commonly does so too.

No

Voting already is the community moderation system in action! And down-votes are part of that as much as up votes; or would you also require up-votes getting reviewed?

Unlike voting down on answers (which also causes the voter to lose a point) the Stack Exchange philosophy is that voting down questions is a good thingTM and therefor a down vote on a question does not cost the caster any points. (And getting your question answered is it's main reward, collecting up votes is not the goal there.)

The voting system is also already regulated in a number of ways:

  • The voting down is a privilege that needs to be earned, it is not given freely, but requires a certain amount of community participation.
  • One user, one vote (per question and per answer). The community should easily be able to balance out a single discordant vote and commonly does so too.

No

Voting already is the community moderation system in action! And down-votes are part of that as much as up votes; or would you also require up-votes getting reviewed?

Unlike voting down on answers (which also causes the voter to lose a point) the Stack Exchange philosophy is that voting down questions is a good thingTM and therefor a down vote on a question does not cost the caster any points. (And getting your question answered is it's main reward, collecting up votes is not the goal there.) Voting in general is good thing and more people should vote more frequently up as well as down!

The voting system is also already regulated in a number of ways:

  • The voting down is a privilege that needs to be earned, it is not given freely, but requires a certain amount of community participation.
  • One user, one vote (per question and per answer). The community should easily be able to balance out a single discordant vote and commonly does so too.
added 815 characters in body
Source Link
HBruijn Mod
  • 82.5k
  • 25
  • 41
Loading
Source Link
HBruijn Mod
  • 82.5k
  • 25
  • 41
Loading