3 ms·

I don't like down voting. too. But have to accept that - where agreement is sought, there also a disagreement is possible. What I don't like is when something h

I don't like down voting. too. But have to accept that - where agreement is sought, there also a disagreement is possible. What I don't like is when something has been down voted, but not told why. That's a bad style from down voters. So, a thing like "no down without why" could be a solution. But as said, up votes do not need a why, so should down votes, too, be possible without a why. That's free willy in my eyes. One can't be forced to talk :)

martin-t 1y ago
> up votes do not need a why The asymmetry bothers me too. But then upvoting seems to imply both subjective agreement and objective correctness as well as endorsement to make it more visible. I would like to see those separated too, lesswrong is trying something like this but whenever I read the descriptions, I always feel like both buttons do the same thing so I think it's a good idea implemented badly. Downvoting can mean any number of things too, just making people separate subjective from objective could have interesting dynamics, especially if claiming something is objectively false was visible to others to disincentivize using it wrongly.