what if you are only granted 1 downvote per 2 upvotes you assign-- this would have a triple effect of promoting a more positive site-wide image and make downvotes twice as meaningful while also preventing abusive brigading of users-- just a thought- is the idea even feasibly applicable?
Okokokok: so, you get one vote point every week for every comment or post that has a net positive of upvotes by other subscribed users in the community. Every net negative post or comment loses a point. You can use those votes either for an up or down, in any community, but you have a balance reflected by your positive contributions as determined by your peers.
This is a horrible idea in many ways, but also a great idea in some ways:
Positives:
New accounts have very little voting power. Established users have voting power proportional to their positive contribution to their communities, as determined by their peers.
It would stop the practice of creating a throw-away accounts only for the purpose of harassing via voting. It would require an extra step of creating a post or comment that at least one other user upvotes. If a user used one of their other accounts just to upvote a comment by another of their accounts, it's a zero-sum game: they've spent a vote just to get a vote.
Established, positive commenters and posters would have proportionate voting power.
It would encourage constructive, positive engagement.
It's entirely relative to the community, and would encourage content relevant to and popular with that community.
Negatives:
Established, positive commenters and posters would have proportionate voting power. This would in theory be encouraging an oligarchy, although since voting is post-scarcity, and since voting is one-time per account, it can't really be translated into exercise-able "power."
It would encourage constructive, positive engagement. In other words, it'd discourage dissent or unpopular opinions, reinforcing the echo chamber.
It's entirely relative to the community, and would encourage content relevant to and popular with that community. Same as above: it encourages pandering.
Someone could still have bot accounts that only have to post or comment such that they have a net positive "income," and then can just sit there and accrue voting points over time, accumulating enough points to still perform voting harassment.
It's biased against lurkers; some people aren't social, and shouldn't be punished for it. This would take away their voices.
I think some of the negatives could be addressed; e.g., vote accrual only happens for comments or posts that are under a month old: you can only accrue a max of 4 points per post or comment. This would address the first and fourth negative. However, I don't think anything could resolve the echo chamber, or the other negatives. Anyway, there's my bad idea.
twitter has something like this that hides you away until you're 'established' by reposting and following x users.. ostensibly to curb botting-- it feels shitty though and could drive a lot of users away.