I mentioned the name Skip the other day .., and got a Negative within minutes..   

Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
I mentioned the name Skip the other day .., and got a Negative within minutes..   

I'm not sure how I would take such a neg vote.  Did someone think you were being unfair to Skip and deserved a neg?  Or did someone just see Skip's name mentioned and gave the neg just because his name was there?  I'm glad the neg was removed, since it clearly was unjustified. But it wouldn't surprise me if there are people out there who hold such an animosity toward Skip that they'll give anybody a negative vote merely for mentioning his name.

Next, I expect some of those people to give a negative vote if you use the word even if you're not referring to Skip by name:  e.g., "How can I skip contributions when I'm looking at new updates in the Database?"   

Quoting whispering:

Quote:
This has probably been asked, but why the negative reputation vote doesnt require an explanation? I think at least it would force the user to think why s/he is giving a negative vote.

Some users (including myself) already asked for this as well. One of the main arguments against it, is the possibility of identifying the voter due to his writing style. I personally wouldn't sign this.

IMHO, negative votes should require a reason (mandatory). Personalizing a vote should be optional (I would do that when I feel that voting negative is necessary! This would prevent speculations and wrong suspicions!)

A minimum timeframe of 24hrs between the referring posting and the ability of voting could  avoid many problems when voters have to think and sleep a night over this.

The general necessity of red arrows is another discussion...

Quoting MarEll:

Quote:
Quoting kahless:

Quote:
A minimum timeframe of 24hrs between the referring posting and the ability of voting could  avoid many problems when voters have to think and sleep a night over this.

The general necessity of red arrows is another discussion...

This wouldn't necessarily work as not all people read a post within 24 hours of it being posted.

Oh, sorry my explanation was a little bit unclear! What I meant was that voting should be possible earliest after 24hrs...time to cool down the heat of a battle.

Quoting kahless:

Quote:
A minimum timeframe of 24hrs between the referring posting and the ability of voting could  avoid many problems when voters have to think and sleep a night over this.

... I don't agree with you that the problem of "not rereading a post" or "fast shooting" is located at the voters side...

Regards, AA

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:


... maybe with a time limit between two res arrows on voter can place on a single destination...

Regards, AA

it is not possible to vote more than once on a post

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
Quoting kahless:

Quote:
A minimum timeframe of 24hrs between the referring posting and the ability of voting could  avoid many problems when voters have to think and sleep a night over this.

... I don't agree with you that the problem of "not rereading a post" or "fast shooting" is located at the voters side...

Exactly.

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
But if you withdraw, does it stick?

I also wonder if it sticks if someone resubmits a profile without withdrawing.

The vote sticks at least if the profile is resubmitted without withdrawing. I know because I happened to get such a vote.

I can understand WHY this is happening, I'm just not sure that the way it SHOULD happen.  Though the Yes votes should stick, too.