> When it's many to one, each member of the mob only has to absorb 1/N of the target's downvotes. For large N, the target will be exhausted before any of their

> When it's many to one, each member of the mob only has to absorb 1/N of the target's downvotes. For large N, the target will be exhausted before any of their attackers feel a thing. They can do mob-downvotes today, only they don't get punished at all. This would be an improvement. If a mob wanted to hurt only one target, your model makes sense. But a mob with an agenda would need to downvote hundreds of posts, at least, to make a significant impact. So having their karma drained while they do so would be a dissuading factor. > What your proposal does is just give the bullies a new weapon. It also gives people a chance to defend themselves. Right now, bullies can not only get away with their tactics with no fear of retribution, but they can also do so anonymously. This new system at least gives the victims a chance to "punch the bully in the nose", regardless of whether that means even a harder beating or not. Also, that you could then "name and shame" even the most karma rich individuals as bullies, by directing people to their profile and "unfair" downvotes, this is another way of fighting back against them. When you weigh that against a bully being able to simply add another negative point, and only if the victim has decided to fight back against the bully (by downvoting their downvote), it seems like a win in my opinion. > Yes, Slashdot has gone downhill, but I think it would have gone downhill even faster with HN's system, and faster still with your proposal. I disagree, but anyway bringing up Slashdot when you admit that its quality is subpar is not evidence that its system is a more ideal model.