I think that leo.voter is already a potential deterrent if they chose to, but it is probably best to just let things go on as they currently are for now.
I am mostly ambivalent about all of that. I am sure I would be pissed if it happened to me, but the rewards are not mine until 7 days...
I think with this type of thing, fighting fire with fire just doesn't work. The main thing that i don't like is when hall monitors get funding from the pool.
If an individual downvotes, even for reasons that I think are stupid--that is their right as long as they do it with their money
I think that leo.voter is already a potential deterrent if they chose to, but it is probably best to just let things go on as they currently are for now.
For now that alone is not enough... I think most of the threads that got downvoted were upvoted by Leo.voter but I didn't take time to confirm that.
I am mostly ambivalent about all of that. I am sure I would be pissed if it happened to me, but the rewards are not mine until 7 days...
I think with this type of thing, fighting fire with fire just doesn't work. The main thing that i don't like is when hall monitors get funding from the pool.
If an individual downvotes, even for reasons that I think are stupid--that is their right as long as they do it with their money
I have mixed feelings about this, but logically I totally agree. It's just that emotionally, it's hard to accept:
In my expereince, responding to downvotes with retaliatory downvotes doesn't end up well--even if you have more HP than them.
Next thing you know there is a downvote war that degenerates.
Small users have to hope that a big user comes and saves them.
At least the downvote use is limited by the system.
There's always some hope in a dark situation...