Users can only upvote five questions per proposal on Area 51, as is well known. It is probably less well known that you don't have to have followed a proposal to upvote or even propose questions.

What I didn't know until I tested it today is that there does not seem to be any limit in the number of downvotes a user may inflict on a proposal, even one they never committed to. I just successfully made (and then reversed) seven downvotes on questions on a proposal I am not following.

Bulk downvoting would probably be picked up by the abuse detectors but it does seem like a loophole that would allow users to throw sand in the wheels of a rival proposal to the one they favor, if that hypothetical situation were ever to arise

share
    
... and you can even damage the reputation of others by downvoting. Nice Catch22 here. – gwr Feb 26 at 17:05

As reported from the FAQ, there is a limit of 5 up-votes per proposal, and a limit of 30 votes per day. This means that you could up-vote 5 questions for a proposal, and down-vote 25 questions the first day; down-vote 30 questions of the same proposal the next days.

While I would expect serial down-votes for a proposal's questions to be detected, I feel there is a disparity between up-voting questions, and down-voting them. To make a comparison with Stack Exchange sites, it would like if I were allowed to up-vote just 5 answers for a question, but down-vote all the answers I want.
I can understand that allowing to up-vote all the questions for a proposal would probably have a negative effect: If users would be allowed to up-vote all the questions for a proposal, then 100 users could up-vote the needed 10 questions, and the proposal would pass to the next phase. What I would like to see is a limit for the down-votes on a proposal. Users don't necessary use the votes for down-voting all the questions for a proposal, once they up-voted the questions for a proposals, but a limit like 5 up-votes/5 down-votes per proposal, or 5 up-votes/10 down-votes per proposal would be preferable, IMO. Now that questions can be closed, there isn't anymore the necessity of down-voting a question until it doesn't reach a score of −11; it is probable that such questions should be rather voted to be closed, now.

share

Except for the limit on up-voting, this is the same exact behavior implemented on Stack Exchange. We don't generally see people using their daily allotment of down-votes to go around systematically down-voting everything in sight.

So, unless there is a wide-spread, demonstrable problem, I'm not inclined to deviate more than is necessary from the behavior of Stack Exchange.

share
9  
The "5 up-votes" limit is a major difference. In my opinion, it's such a major difference that you can't reasonably state that you're trying to conform to the normal Stack Exchange behavior. – Kevin Vermeer Jan 4 '12 at 19:27
2  
"We don't generally see people using their daily allotment of down-votes to go around systematically down-voting everything in sight." I do see this on the proposal I'm following. It is quite frustrating to see systematic down-votes on all questions on the site with no accompanying constructive criticism. – Eric Wilson Mar 29 '13 at 16:01
    
I just noted exactly that kind of destructive behavior and it is a loophole: I can just go around and downvote -- especially on say competiting proposals -- and may get away. In the case of my proposal the downvotes came from none of the followers and of course no reasons were given. – gwr Feb 26 at 16:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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