> Users will just be frustrated for a bit until they train themselves to pick the category that maximizes the effect of their downvote. If each other user can

> Users will just be frustrated for a bit until they train themselves to pick the category that maximizes the effect of their downvote. If each other user can choose what downvote categories they want reflected on their site, this dynamic doesn't work the way you are describing. > examine why people downvote. Because categories won't change that. It seems to me like forcing people to label why they are downvoting would be very helpful to examining why people downvote. > It would be like the emoji committee not including an emoji for penis. That worked well, didn't it? I think it worked really well? Like, I wouldn't mind a penis emoji, but it turns out we've got an informal penis emoji and it works great? What do you feel did not work well about it? It seems like you are thinking that I am thinking that this system would...prevent bad downvotes or make people think twice or...I dunno, be better? I was not thinking that. The idea is more about forcing people to contextualize their downvotes in a way that can be observed and reacted to by the community at large. It would be a way of talking about why people downvote without making a particular person defend themselves. It would, hopefully, add another layer to the communal sense of why people are engaging in the way they are.