16

No. Please don't. But technically we can't stop you either. Voting on SE sites is strictly a personal affair. Your reasons for voting are your own and the system cannot tell why any single vote is cast. The system is only useful for its for the aggregate of many votes. Some of the individual votes will undoubtedly be for the "wrong" reasons, but if ...


11

Up and down votes are anonymous, and unless someone tells you how they voted, it is both presumptuous and rude to accuse someone else of voting a certain way. You can't know who gave you that downvote, let alone why. The reason why votes are anonymous is because of exactly what you're doing here: trying to gatekeep the voting process. It's not possible to ...


10

David hinted at this (and I agree with his assessment that no we are not too quick to close these days) but I think it bears emphasising that up/down voting on posts should not correlate to close/open voting. These are two completely separate functions for a reason and the use cases for each are different. Somebody could put a ton of effort into a very good ...


9

That's an old problem and you've got a good point. It happens as we get more users, and older users that should know better (me included) forget the rules. As for the debate in comments based on personal belief - About the only thing I've found effective is to be very careful in how the questions and answers are phrased, and including disclaimers. I ...


8

Voting to express (dis)agreement with a meta post as an at-voter-discretion alternative to voting on the normally encouraged factors is a nearly universal pattern across all Stack Exchange meta sites (including Meta.SO where votes actually count for rep). At this point changing the culture is simply not feasible* and having a local site norm that is at ...


8

No, I don't think people are too quick to close. right now I think it's just about right. There was a time in the past where it was the exact opposite and clearly off-topic questions remained open far too long. Like it or not, some questions that get positive votes still need to be closed, and closed quickly. There are plenty of users who ignore the ...


6

There are "good questions" (related to the topic of Christianity) and then there are "good questions that work well on Christianity.SE"... These two groups are overlapping but different sets, and because of the nature of the site, the latter set is actually quite a bit smaller than the former set. Why is this so? Well, one of the main reasons is because we ...


6

I do agree that the auto-question banning script seems a little too heavy for my tastes, however, I do not think users should refrain from downvoting just because it may trigger the auto-ban script. Perhaps we might be able to loosen the severity of the script's actions. If it really is triggered after only two consecutive questions that are down voted and ...


6

I guess I would argue the answer can be sort of, but mostly no. Voting on questions and particularly answers is supposed to be based on if they are helpful, clear and well-defined. If someone were to, say, answer a question about the Catholic perspective on an issue and an answer was given that accurately represented the Catholic view clearly, it should ...


6

Voting is supposed to be anonymous. By asking people to explain their down votes (which the system already does), your asking them to break the anonymity that they are entitled do. If someone wants to comment they are welcome and encouraged to, but if they don't want to we can't make them. Last note: depending on why you're down voting it may be counter ...


6

This is actually standard behavior on Stack Exchange sites for people with less than 2000 reputation: see Encouraging people to explain downvotes. As for your desire that it require a click to close, that would be something to propose on Meta Stack Exchange, since it would be a change to the software that runs Christianity SE. The importance of comments ...


6

It's absolutely ludicrous to say that your downvoters have never explained their votes. Here is just a selection of some of the comments your questions have received. Votes are secret so we can't know for sure that all of these commenters did downvote, but it's reasonable to assume that some did. And note also that many of these comments were themselves ...


6

It's not commenting that makes a difference, but the type of content that you are downvoting. Downvoting answers always costs you 1 rep. Downvoting questions doesn't reduce your rep at all. This help center page covers this and more: What is reputation? How do I earn (and lose) it?


5

I suspect the problem is that your question is just too broad and opinion-based, and more of a discussion-starter (which isn't what this site is about) than a question that calls for a specific, objective answer (which is what this site is about). See these help articles: How we are different than other sites What topics can I ask about here? How do I ask ...


5

Let's start with the basics If the votes were indeed targetted and all by the same person, they will likely be rolled back by an automatic script that runs nightly to prevent exactly this kind of abuse. Manually removing votes is outside the powers of moderators, the SE community team has the capability to do this, but it is rarely invoked and only in ...


5

This is phrased as a request rather than a policy for a simple reason - We can neither demand nor enforce that anyone do anything in regards to votes. As such, the only solution is to plead. And this, I will do - I would appeal to the better angels of your nature, if you choose to anonymously downvote. It has been said that any fool can knock over a ...


4

Red, I think the question is fine. It identifies a problem, shows that you made an attempt to research it, and is clear. I really have no idea why someone gave it a downvote. The only thing I can think of is they thought it was more a question of Judaism than Christianity. Based on my own questions, I've found question DVs to be somewhat random - my two ...


4

I suggest you were probably having a temporary network issue. The interface shows you the results of your vote instantly, then in the background notifies the server of your action and receives a verification. It is the server that may choose to reject the action (possible reasons include you have previously voted on the post, the post is your own, you have ...


4

There's absolutely nothing wrong with downvotes without leaving a comment. At the very least, it's somebody saying. I don't think this answer should bubble up to the top. People don't have to justify their votes and if there's a conspiracy to downvote you, the system is supposed to trigger some alarms and undo any malicious action. One thing to keep in ...


4

My thinking there is that new users may be helped in curbing their down voting tendencies by having a dialogue that must be closed. There are several mechanisms in place already to curb down voting tendencies in inexperienced user. The pop-up message you noted reminds users how they can do more that just DV. New users can't DV at all until they earn 125 ...


3

You asked "How do we know Jews or ancient people thought leprosy was due to sin?" But when I read that I think "I don't know that. I wasn't even hypothesising that." The way questions are phrased matters. Perhaps you could rephrase it along the lines of "What evidence is there that the Jews thought leprosy was caused by sin?"


3

As a conservative evangelical I have found it hard to dissasosiate my beliefs from my answering/commenting/voting. I've started doing 2 things: Make sure I read each answer with it's justification/evidence. I don't consider whether or not I agree with the answer, just if it does answer the question. Answer the question from my own belief, making sure I can ...


3

You aren't getting "likes" and "dislikes" you're getting upvotes and downvotes. This isn't pedantry (although you really should use the correct terms)... keep in mind that a downvote is defined as "This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful," not "I don't like this question." I don't know about anyone else, but I find ...


3

As someone else who cares about real truth, I appreciate the desire to see good true answers on this site (even if that's not the point of the site). But voting is generally a poor way to do it. When someone writes an answer which is against your convictions, sometimes it's a poor answer. It may not really address the question, or it may be poorly ...


2

Your last (somewhat tangential) paragraph in particular isn't a good fit here: questioning why Jesus didn't do some things is off-topic. The rest of the question is actually a verse search question, which are generally not considered acceptable here (see here). The answer is either "no such verse exists," or perhaps something like the answer I've provided.


2

There is an automated process that will take care of most cases of extreme serial downvoting. This appears to be the case in the instance that prompted this (I have no more info here than you do). If someone goes through and downvotes or upvotes a bunch of your posts, chances are they will get reversed by the script. This is normal behavior to prevent the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible