Maybe that is the downvote that can serve as a platform for @onealfa and @trostparadox to unite their tribe edging a civil war. It provides an opportunity to arrive at the same conclusions despite starting at opposite ends of the opinion spectrum in the general downvote debate.
It's a bit unclear to me what you mean here. Can you please explain what you're thinking in a bit more detail?
I am still not following. What action do you think alfa might take and what action do you think I might take?
Okay. Your post merely reinforced my belief that downvote abuse is much too easy, and almost never countered. In fact, the way the system is set up, there is no effective way to counter the abuse. I'm not sure alfa would be persuaded, though.
Some have said that the 'community' can counter any supposed downvote abuse by simply upvoting the content to overcome the DVs. There are two major flaws with that argument.
The first deals with timing. A large stakeholder intent on punishing another accountholder can simply wait until the very last minute and apply the DV, thus negating any chance of the 'community' coming to the rescue of the author.
Secondly, even if the community does 'come the rescue' by upvoting a heavily-downvoted post, they are doing so to their own detriment, because their curation rewards are reduced proportionately to the size of the downvote. Whereas DVs cost the DV'er nothing, the malicious downvoter, intent on abusing another accountholder, can do so ad infinitum because it costs them nothing, but is costly to both the targeted author and the community striving to support that author. At some point, the other side (author or curators or both) will grow tired of essentially subsidizing the DV'ers actions, with no end in sight.
The only reason why you will get malicious downvotes from me till you stop your stupid crusade and your little policeman behaviour are your bullshit assumptions and misrepresentations.
Best regards.
Yes, I follow you.
And, yes, you are correct in that, under the current 'code' the only way to combat malicious DV'ing is by enlisting whale accounts to enter into a DV war with the 'abusing' account. Because DVs cost nothing, they can be used with impunity, forever, unless and until there is a genuine penalty brought to bare against the abuser.
The problem then becomes, a whale penalizing an abuser could then be labeled (by someone sympathetic to the abuser) as abusing the abuser.
So, it's hard to see where this sorts itself out.
BTW, I am definitely open to creative solutions, especially on Layer 2, where they can be tried and tested and easily reverted if things don't go as expected.
I am curious as to what "winning the war" would look like, from your perspective.