Currently there is no limit to the number of down votes one person can cast.

A similar question was asked at meta and closed there to be asked here. There is a comment saying the question was posted here, but I have looked and can not find it.

This is somewhat based on a related question Is a mass down vote vandalism

If we assume that in a perfect scenario a proposal in search of definition requires 40 questions with 10 up votes each, and each person is limited to 5 votes than it requires 8 people for a single up vote to be scored to each of the 40 question. It requires 80 peoples votes to move a proposal forward. But it only takes 10 people to completely reverse the up votes of those 80 people.

Comments are allowed on questions, so if you truly feel that more than 5 questions are not appropriate there is an avenue to address each question individually.

To me it seems unbalanced to allow a subject's detractor to have 8 (or more) times the voice of a promoter.

Should the down vote limit during 'Definition' phase be the same as the up vote limit?

share
    
See related by Robert Cartaino "@JamesJenkins I agree with your proposal to a point, but we haven't been able to do much with the basic constructs of Area 51 for awhile. Since this "oversight" hasn't substantively caused any proposals to be actively blocked, it it being considered, but we're not likely going to see any any substantive changes to Area 51 until we can consider the entire site-creation process as a whole. But let's not get off topic and hijack this thread" – James Jenkins Jun 25 '14 at 17:02
4  
@RobertCartaino I disagree that a proposal has not been actively blocked. Compare the definition votes for 3 recent Religious proposals; Buddhism, Up = 494, Down = 34, Total = 528; Hinduism, Up = 448 Down = 35, Total = 483; Pastafarianism, Up = 341, Down = 218, Total = 559. While sufficient up votes to move Pastafarianism forward are not yet in place. The forward movement is being significantly impeded, and the negative community is being empowered. Pastafarianism has 36 Questions with 2 or more up votes, it should be in the home stretch of definition phase. How can we address this issue? – James Jenkins Jul 5 '14 at 12:13
    
Does this question even matter? There are few voices saying "yes", and nobody arguing against. Who can change anything? – Marjeta Jul 15 '14 at 16:41
1  
There is a Next Generation of Area 51 in the works – James Jenkins Jul 18 '14 at 11:13
    
I added the feature request tag to this post. – James Jenkins Apr 3 at 10:43

Yes the up votes and down vote limits per proposal on Area 51 should match. This related question from Jan 2014 (I just found it) seems to indicate that those expressing a preference, prefer to match limits.

The argument is made at the related question, that matching these would deviate from the standards at Stack Exchange.

I disagree, on Stack Exchange up voters and down voter have exactly the same voice, but at area 51, down voters have 8 times the voice of up voters. It requires 80 people’s votes to move a proposal forward. But it only takes 10 people to completely reverse the up votes of those 80 people

share

I'd went even further and suggest, that the limit of the downvotes should equal the number of used upvotes.

Voting on example questions has other purpose as voting on the launched sites. Here I use votes to say, which question I'd like to see on the site, and which I wouldn't like to see.

Saying what I'd like to see is more important, so the upvotes should be the citizens no 1. The downvotes should server pushing down some weaker context, but showing the good one should be more important.

If some questions are bad or trolling, there are close votes which should be used in first line.

share

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .