We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
6 replaced http://christianity.stackexchange.com/ with https://christianity.stackexchange.com/
source | link

I personally don't believe that anyone is targetting your posts. I'm someone who votes frequently on this site (total votes since joining - 2,826 upvotes & 193 downvotes) and am very happy to upvote well-sourced and well-argued post even if they represent a viewpoint I disagree with. From the stats it is apparant that I am not a heavy downvoter, but I do occasionally down vote (what are in my opinion) poorly-argued posts even if I agree with their overall perspective. From my observations of voting patterns at least a majority of regular voting users behave in a similar way, with perhaps the average voter being slightly more inclined to downvote more often than I do.

I've been happy to upvote many of your posts in the past and imagine that all things being equal I will be doing so again in the future. However...

I sometimes find myself viewing one of your posts and find that your material does not quite meet the standard I would expect. This tends to happen more for questions that do not specifically call for a Catholic viewpoint and far far less for questions that do. I don't often downvote in these circumstances, but when I see a few downvotes from others, I can certainly appreciate the reasons why. The main problem I notice in these particular instances is that you seem to put forward a dogmatic view as either the only possibility or the only reasonable possibility without giving due consideration to other possible viewpoints*. Such an approach does not normally cause problems on Catholic scoped questions, but on questions where non-Catholic perspectives are on-topic it is a significant weakness that in my opinion can lead to attracting downvotes. It's not that you are merely advancing your viewpoint exclusively, it's that you often do not fairly or reasonably address alternative viewpoints.

I found supporting evidence for my opinion when I reviewed your 10 most recent answersyour 10 most recent answers and found that in the 7 explicitly scoped to Catholicism questions, you attracted 0 downvotes. In the other 3 questions, only the one you took to Metathe one you took to Meta attracted downvotes.**

*This particular answer seems to be a good example of what I was talking about previously - when I first viewed your post, I believe I saw revision three & it may have already attracted it's down-votes by that stage - if not I observed that they were made soon afterwards. When I saw them I could appreciate the rationale for those down votes even though ultimately I decided not to vote that way myself - I merely abstained from upvoting. One thing that has influenced my behaviour in this regard (refraining from down-voting on your posts) is that you are often responsive to comments and make frequent revisions to your posts - so I feel it's sometimes better to wait to see the finished product before making a judgment. I didn't feel strongly enough about my reservations to post a comment.

My conclusion is that if there is any targetting against you, it has not been particularly evident in the last week or so.

**In defense of using this methodology rather than responding to the particular downvotes you've listed above, I put it to you that the lion's share of votes cast by the more active users on the site are made on new posts. If someone really was targetting you and downvoting old posts, you should expect to see many more than the downvotes you've referred to.

I personally don't believe that anyone is targetting your posts. I'm someone who votes frequently on this site (total votes since joining - 2,826 upvotes & 193 downvotes) and am very happy to upvote well-sourced and well-argued post even if they represent a viewpoint I disagree with. From the stats it is apparant that I am not a heavy downvoter, but I do occasionally down vote (what are in my opinion) poorly-argued posts even if I agree with their overall perspective. From my observations of voting patterns at least a majority of regular voting users behave in a similar way, with perhaps the average voter being slightly more inclined to downvote more often than I do.

I've been happy to upvote many of your posts in the past and imagine that all things being equal I will be doing so again in the future. However...

I sometimes find myself viewing one of your posts and find that your material does not quite meet the standard I would expect. This tends to happen more for questions that do not specifically call for a Catholic viewpoint and far far less for questions that do. I don't often downvote in these circumstances, but when I see a few downvotes from others, I can certainly appreciate the reasons why. The main problem I notice in these particular instances is that you seem to put forward a dogmatic view as either the only possibility or the only reasonable possibility without giving due consideration to other possible viewpoints*. Such an approach does not normally cause problems on Catholic scoped questions, but on questions where non-Catholic perspectives are on-topic it is a significant weakness that in my opinion can lead to attracting downvotes. It's not that you are merely advancing your viewpoint exclusively, it's that you often do not fairly or reasonably address alternative viewpoints.

I found supporting evidence for my opinion when I reviewed your 10 most recent answers and found that in the 7 explicitly scoped to Catholicism questions, you attracted 0 downvotes. In the other 3 questions, only the one you took to Meta attracted downvotes.**

*This particular answer seems to be a good example of what I was talking about previously - when I first viewed your post, I believe I saw revision three & it may have already attracted it's down-votes by that stage - if not I observed that they were made soon afterwards. When I saw them I could appreciate the rationale for those down votes even though ultimately I decided not to vote that way myself - I merely abstained from upvoting. One thing that has influenced my behaviour in this regard (refraining from down-voting on your posts) is that you are often responsive to comments and make frequent revisions to your posts - so I feel it's sometimes better to wait to see the finished product before making a judgment. I didn't feel strongly enough about my reservations to post a comment.

My conclusion is that if there is any targetting against you, it has not been particularly evident in the last week or so.

**In defense of using this methodology rather than responding to the particular downvotes you've listed above, I put it to you that the lion's share of votes cast by the more active users on the site are made on new posts. If someone really was targetting you and downvoting old posts, you should expect to see many more than the downvotes you've referred to.

I personally don't believe that anyone is targetting your posts. I'm someone who votes frequently on this site (total votes since joining - 2,826 upvotes & 193 downvotes) and am very happy to upvote well-sourced and well-argued post even if they represent a viewpoint I disagree with. From the stats it is apparant that I am not a heavy downvoter, but I do occasionally down vote (what are in my opinion) poorly-argued posts even if I agree with their overall perspective. From my observations of voting patterns at least a majority of regular voting users behave in a similar way, with perhaps the average voter being slightly more inclined to downvote more often than I do.

I've been happy to upvote many of your posts in the past and imagine that all things being equal I will be doing so again in the future. However...

I sometimes find myself viewing one of your posts and find that your material does not quite meet the standard I would expect. This tends to happen more for questions that do not specifically call for a Catholic viewpoint and far far less for questions that do. I don't often downvote in these circumstances, but when I see a few downvotes from others, I can certainly appreciate the reasons why. The main problem I notice in these particular instances is that you seem to put forward a dogmatic view as either the only possibility or the only reasonable possibility without giving due consideration to other possible viewpoints*. Such an approach does not normally cause problems on Catholic scoped questions, but on questions where non-Catholic perspectives are on-topic it is a significant weakness that in my opinion can lead to attracting downvotes. It's not that you are merely advancing your viewpoint exclusively, it's that you often do not fairly or reasonably address alternative viewpoints.

I found supporting evidence for my opinion when I reviewed your 10 most recent answers and found that in the 7 explicitly scoped to Catholicism questions, you attracted 0 downvotes. In the other 3 questions, only the one you took to Meta attracted downvotes.**

*This particular answer seems to be a good example of what I was talking about previously - when I first viewed your post, I believe I saw revision three & it may have already attracted it's down-votes by that stage - if not I observed that they were made soon afterwards. When I saw them I could appreciate the rationale for those down votes even though ultimately I decided not to vote that way myself - I merely abstained from upvoting. One thing that has influenced my behaviour in this regard (refraining from down-voting on your posts) is that you are often responsive to comments and make frequent revisions to your posts - so I feel it's sometimes better to wait to see the finished product before making a judgment. I didn't feel strongly enough about my reservations to post a comment.

My conclusion is that if there is any targetting against you, it has not been particularly evident in the last week or so.

**In defense of using this methodology rather than responding to the particular downvotes you've listed above, I put it to you that the lion's share of votes cast by the more active users on the site are made on new posts. If someone really was targetting you and downvoting old posts, you should expect to see many more than the downvotes you've referred to.

5 edited body
source | link

I personally don't believe that anyone is targetting your posts. I'm someone who votes frequently on this site (total votes since joining - 2,826 upvotes & 193 downvotes) and am very happy to upvote well-sourced and well-argued post even if they represent a viewpoint I disagree with. From the stats it is apparant that I am not a heavy downvoter, but I do occasionally down vote (what are in my opinion) poorly-argued posts even if I agree with their overall perspective. From my observations of voting patterns at least a majority of regular voting users behave in a similar way, with perhaps the average voter being slightly more inclined to downvote more often than I do.

I've been happy to upvote many of your posts in the past and imagine that all things being equal I will be doing so again in the future. However...

I sometimes find myself sometimes viewing one of your posts and find that your material does not quite meet the standard I would expect. This tends to happen more for questions that do not specifically call for a Catholic viewpoint and far far less for questions that do. I don't often downvote in these circumstances, but when I see a few downvotes from others, I can certainly appreciate the reasons why. The main problem I notice in these particular instances is that you seem to put forward a dogmatic view as either the only possibility or the only reasonable possibility without giving due consideration to other possible viewpoints*. Such an approach does not normally cause problems on Catholic scoped questions, but on questions where non-Catholic perspectives are on-topic it is a significant weakness that in my opinion can lead to attracting downvotes. It's not that you are merely advancing your viewpoint exclusively, it's that you often do not fairly or reasonably address alternative viewpoints.

I found supporting evidence for my opinion when I reviewed your 10 most recent answers and found that in the 7 explicitly scoped to Catholicism questions, you attracted 0 downvotes. In the other 3 questions, only the one you took to Meta attracted downvotes.**

*This particular answer seems to be a good example of what I was talking about previously - when I first viewed your post, I believe I saw revision three & it may have already attracted it's down-votes by that stage - if not I observed that they were made soon afterwards. When I saw them I could appreciate the rationale for those down votes even though ultimately I decided not to vote that way myself - I merely abstained from upvoting. One thing that has influenced my behaviour in this regard (refraining from down-voting on your posts) is that you are often responsive to comments and make frequent revisions to your posts - so I feel it's sometimes better to wait to see the finished product before making a judgment. I didn't feel strongly enough about my reservations to post a comment.

My conclusion is that if there is any targetting against you, it has not been particularly evident in the last week or so.

**In defense of using this methodology rather than responding to the particular downvotes you've listed above, I put it to you that the lion's share of votes cast by the more active users on the site are made on new posts. If someone really was targetting you and downvoting old posts, you should expect to see many more than the downvotes you've referred to.

I personally don't believe that anyone is targetting your posts. I'm someone who votes frequently on this site (total votes since joining - 2,826 upvotes & 193 downvotes) and am very happy to upvote well-sourced and well-argued post even if they represent a viewpoint I disagree with. From the stats it is apparant that I am not a heavy downvoter, but I do occasionally down vote (what are in my opinion) poorly-argued posts even if I agree with their overall perspective. From my observations of voting patterns at least a majority of regular voting users behave in a similar way, with perhaps the average voter being slightly more inclined to downvote more often than I do.

I've been happy to upvote many of your posts in the past and imagine that all things being equal I will be doing so again in the future. However...

I find myself sometimes viewing one of your posts and find that your material does not quite meet the standard I would expect. This tends to happen more for questions that do not specifically call for a Catholic viewpoint and far far less for questions that do. I don't often downvote in these circumstances, but when I see a few downvotes from others, I can certainly appreciate the reasons why. The main problem I notice in these particular instances is that you seem to put forward a dogmatic view as either the only possibility or the only reasonable possibility without giving due consideration to other possible viewpoints*. Such an approach does not normally cause problems on Catholic scoped questions, but on questions where non-Catholic perspectives are on-topic it is a significant weakness that in my opinion can lead to attracting downvotes. It's not that you are merely advancing your viewpoint exclusively, it's that you often do not fairly or reasonably address alternative viewpoints.

I found supporting evidence for my opinion when I reviewed your 10 most recent answers and found that in the 7 explicitly scoped to Catholicism questions, you attracted 0 downvotes. In the other 3 questions, only the one you took to Meta attracted downvotes.**

*This particular answer seems to be a good example of what I was talking about previously - when I first viewed your post, I believe I saw revision three & it may have already attracted it's down-votes by that stage - if not I observed that they were made soon afterwards. When I saw them I could appreciate the rationale for those down votes even though ultimately I decided not to vote that way myself - I merely abstained from upvoting. One thing that has influenced my behaviour in this regard (refraining from down-voting on your posts) is that you are often responsive to comments and make frequent revisions to your posts - so I feel it's sometimes better to wait to see the finished product before making a judgment. I didn't feel strongly enough about my reservations to post a comment.

My conclusion is that if there is any targetting against you, it has not been particularly evident in the last week or so.

**In defense of using this methodology rather than responding to the particular downvotes you've listed above, I put it to you that the lion's share of votes cast by the more active users on the site are made on new posts. If someone really was targetting you and downvoting old posts, you should expect to see many more than the downvotes you've referred to.

I personally don't believe that anyone is targetting your posts. I'm someone who votes frequently on this site (total votes since joining - 2,826 upvotes & 193 downvotes) and am very happy to upvote well-sourced and well-argued post even if they represent a viewpoint I disagree with. From the stats it is apparant that I am not a heavy downvoter, but I do occasionally down vote (what are in my opinion) poorly-argued posts even if I agree with their overall perspective. From my observations of voting patterns at least a majority of regular voting users behave in a similar way, with perhaps the average voter being slightly more inclined to downvote more often than I do.

I've been happy to upvote many of your posts in the past and imagine that all things being equal I will be doing so again in the future. However...

I sometimes find myself viewing one of your posts and find that your material does not quite meet the standard I would expect. This tends to happen more for questions that do not specifically call for a Catholic viewpoint and far far less for questions that do. I don't often downvote in these circumstances, but when I see a few downvotes from others, I can certainly appreciate the reasons why. The main problem I notice in these particular instances is that you seem to put forward a dogmatic view as either the only possibility or the only reasonable possibility without giving due consideration to other possible viewpoints*. Such an approach does not normally cause problems on Catholic scoped questions, but on questions where non-Catholic perspectives are on-topic it is a significant weakness that in my opinion can lead to attracting downvotes. It's not that you are merely advancing your viewpoint exclusively, it's that you often do not fairly or reasonably address alternative viewpoints.

I found supporting evidence for my opinion when I reviewed your 10 most recent answers and found that in the 7 explicitly scoped to Catholicism questions, you attracted 0 downvotes. In the other 3 questions, only the one you took to Meta attracted downvotes.**

*This particular answer seems to be a good example of what I was talking about previously - when I first viewed your post, I believe I saw revision three & it may have already attracted it's down-votes by that stage - if not I observed that they were made soon afterwards. When I saw them I could appreciate the rationale for those down votes even though ultimately I decided not to vote that way myself - I merely abstained from upvoting. One thing that has influenced my behaviour in this regard (refraining from down-voting on your posts) is that you are often responsive to comments and make frequent revisions to your posts - so I feel it's sometimes better to wait to see the finished product before making a judgment. I didn't feel strongly enough about my reservations to post a comment.

My conclusion is that if there is any targetting against you, it has not been particularly evident in the last week or so.

**In defense of using this methodology rather than responding to the particular downvotes you've listed above, I put it to you that the lion's share of votes cast by the more active users on the site are made on new posts. If someone really was targetting you and downvoting old posts, you should expect to see many more than the downvotes you've referred to.

4 added 580 characters in body
source | link

I personally don't believe that anyone is targetting your posts. I'm someone who votes frequently on this site (total votes since joining - 2,826 upvotes & 193 downvotes) and am very happy to upvote well-sourced and well-argued post even if they represent a viewpoint I disagree with. From the stats it is apparant that I am not a heavy downvoter, but I do occasionally down vote (what are in my opinion) poorly-argued posts even if I agree with their overall perspective. From my observations of voting patterns at least a majority of regular voting users behave in a similar way, with perhaps the average voter being slightly more inclined to downvote more often than I do.

I've been happy to upvote many of your posts in the past and imagine that all things being equal I will be doing so again in the future. However...

I find myself sometimes viewing one of your posts and find that your material does not quite meet the standard I would expect. This tends to happen more for questions that do not specifically call for a Catholic viewpoint and far far less for questions that do. I don't often downvote in these circumstances, but when I see a few downvotes from others, I can certainly appreciate the reasons why. The main problem I notice in these particular instances is that you seem to put forward a dogmatic view as either the only possibility or the only reasonable possibility without giving due consideration to other possible viewpoints*. Such an approach does not normally cause problems on Catholic scoped questions, but on questions where non-Catholic perspectives are on-topic it is a significant weakness that in my opinion can lead to attracting downvotes. It's not that you are merely advancing your viewpoint exclusively, it's that you often do not fairly or reasonably address alternative viewpoints.

I found supporting evidence for my opinion when I reviewed your 10 most recent answers and found that in the 7 explicitly scoped to Catholicism questions, you attracted 0 downvotes. In the other 3 questions, only the one you took to Meta attracted downvotes.**

*This particular answer seems to be a good example of what I was talking about previously - when I first viewed your post, I believe I saw revision three & it may have already attracted it's down-votes by that stage - if not I observed that they were made soon afterwards. When I saw them I could appreciate the rationale for those down votes even though ultimately I decided not to vote that way myself - I merely abstained from upvoting. One thing that has influenced my behaviour in this regard (refraining from down-voting on your posts) is that you are often responsive to comments and make frequent revisions to your posts - so I feel it's sometimes better to wait to see the finished product before making a judgment. I didn't feel strongly enough about my reservations to post a comment.

My conclusion is that if there is any targetting against you, it has not been particularly evident in the last week or so.

**In defense of using this methodology rather than responding to the particular downvotes you've listed above, I put it to you that the lion's share of votes cast by the more active users on the site are made on new posts. If someone really was targetting you and downvoting old posts, you should expect to see many more than the downvotes you've referred to.

I personally don't believe that anyone is targetting your posts. I'm someone who votes frequently on this site (total votes since joining - 2,826 upvotes & 193 downvotes) and am very happy to upvote well-sourced and well-argued post even if they represent a viewpoint I disagree with. From the stats it is apparant that I am not a heavy downvoter, but I do occasionally down vote (what are in my opinion) poorly-argued posts even if I agree with their overall perspective. From my observations of voting patterns at least a majority of regular voting users behave in a similar way, with perhaps the average voter being slightly more inclined to downvote more often than I do.

I've been happy to upvote many of your posts in the past and imagine that all things being equal I will be doing so again in the future. However...

I find myself sometimes viewing one of your posts and find that your material does not quite meet the standard I would expect. This tends to happen more for questions that do not specifically call for a Catholic viewpoint and far far less for questions that do. I don't often downvote in these circumstances, but when I see a few downvotes from others, I can certainly appreciate the reasons why. The main problem I notice in these particular instances is that you seem to put forward a dogmatic view as either the only possibility or the only reasonable possibility without giving due consideration to other possible viewpoints*. Such an approach does not normally cause problems on Catholic scoped questions, but on questions where non-Catholic perspectives are on-topic it is a significant weakness that in my opinion can lead to attracting downvotes. It's not that you are merely advancing your viewpoint exclusively, it's that you often do not fairly or reasonably address alternative viewpoints.

I found supporting evidence for my opinion when I reviewed your 10 most recent answers and found that in the 7 explicitly scoped to Catholicism questions, you attracted 0 downvotes. In the other 3 questions, only the one you took to Meta attracted downvotes.

*This particular answer seems to be a good example of what I was talking about previously - when I first viewed your post, I believe I saw revision three & it may have already attracted it's down-votes by that stage - if not I observed that they were made soon afterwards. When I saw them I could appreciate the rationale for those down votes even though ultimately I decided not to vote that way myself - I merely abstained from upvoting. One thing that has influenced my behaviour in this regard (refraining from down-voting on your posts) is that you are often responsive to comments and make frequent revisions to your posts - so I feel it's sometimes better to wait to see the finished product before making a judgment. I didn't feel strongly enough about my reservations to post a comment.

My conclusion is that if there is any targetting against you, it has not been particularly evident in the last week or so.

I personally don't believe that anyone is targetting your posts. I'm someone who votes frequently on this site (total votes since joining - 2,826 upvotes & 193 downvotes) and am very happy to upvote well-sourced and well-argued post even if they represent a viewpoint I disagree with. From the stats it is apparant that I am not a heavy downvoter, but I do occasionally down vote (what are in my opinion) poorly-argued posts even if I agree with their overall perspective. From my observations of voting patterns at least a majority of regular voting users behave in a similar way, with perhaps the average voter being slightly more inclined to downvote more often than I do.

I've been happy to upvote many of your posts in the past and imagine that all things being equal I will be doing so again in the future. However...

I find myself sometimes viewing one of your posts and find that your material does not quite meet the standard I would expect. This tends to happen more for questions that do not specifically call for a Catholic viewpoint and far far less for questions that do. I don't often downvote in these circumstances, but when I see a few downvotes from others, I can certainly appreciate the reasons why. The main problem I notice in these particular instances is that you seem to put forward a dogmatic view as either the only possibility or the only reasonable possibility without giving due consideration to other possible viewpoints*. Such an approach does not normally cause problems on Catholic scoped questions, but on questions where non-Catholic perspectives are on-topic it is a significant weakness that in my opinion can lead to attracting downvotes. It's not that you are merely advancing your viewpoint exclusively, it's that you often do not fairly or reasonably address alternative viewpoints.

I found supporting evidence for my opinion when I reviewed your 10 most recent answers and found that in the 7 explicitly scoped to Catholicism questions, you attracted 0 downvotes. In the other 3 questions, only the one you took to Meta attracted downvotes.**

*This particular answer seems to be a good example of what I was talking about previously - when I first viewed your post, I believe I saw revision three & it may have already attracted it's down-votes by that stage - if not I observed that they were made soon afterwards. When I saw them I could appreciate the rationale for those down votes even though ultimately I decided not to vote that way myself - I merely abstained from upvoting. One thing that has influenced my behaviour in this regard (refraining from down-voting on your posts) is that you are often responsive to comments and make frequent revisions to your posts - so I feel it's sometimes better to wait to see the finished product before making a judgment. I didn't feel strongly enough about my reservations to post a comment.

My conclusion is that if there is any targetting against you, it has not been particularly evident in the last week or so.

**In defense of using this methodology rather than responding to the particular downvotes you've listed above, I put it to you that the lion's share of votes cast by the more active users on the site are made on new posts. If someone really was targetting you and downvoting old posts, you should expect to see many more than the downvotes you've referred to.

3 added 580 characters in body
source | link
2 added 580 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link