In reddit, people will mainly vote down post that they disagree. What is needed is to separate community agreement indicator with democratic moderation.

An approach is to place another set of arrows, but that clutters up the screen... instead:

What should be done to alleviate this effect somewhat, is to use normal vote up and down to indicate voting based on opinion. And double voting to indicate opinion+report

If there is a particularly odious post that deserves to be hidden, then you can double vote down a post. This will count as both a "negative karma" and "troll points"

Single vote: increments karma points

Double vote: increments karma+troll points

---

Effects: This does allow for post that the community really do disagree with, but is not breaking the rules.
-- mofosyne, Dec 11 2014

Except the people downvoting based on opinion don't think they're doing so, and would just double downvote automatically since anyone who disagrees with them is obviously wrong.
-- ytk, Dec 12 2014


Then that is somewhat off setting by people double upvoting.

I think most people don't care enough to double downvote. They just want to indicate if they agree/disagree .

Surely people on the internet are not spiteful carp of fishes?

really?...

really?...
-- mofosyne, Dec 12 2014


This will only feed the downvoting trolls. And it is the opposite of computer ergonomics to assign more than one function to one action.
-- Toto Anders, Dec 12 2014


I'm rather a fan of the stackoverflow voting model which appears to have been constructed with encouragement of decent behaviours at the forefront of the design process.

i.e. it's good, almost entirely unlike the previous sentence which should be encouraged to hike off into the woods and live out the rest of its natural life barely subsisting on a diet of berries, wood-bark and remorse.
-- zen_tom, Dec 12 2014


// remorse //

Aren't they the little purplish ones, a bit like blueberries ?
-- 8th of 7, Dec 12 2014


That's the stuff - pungent flavour, quite bitter, and attractive to bears.
-- zen_tom, Dec 12 2014


Mmm, bears.
-- pocmloc, Dec 12 2014


Who am I to say who's trolling? Half the time the "troll" isn't even aware that they're a troll. Actual trolls are best dealt with factually.

[-] because I don't think this idea is sound. Heavily boned ideas grab attention, which is what (some) trolls apparently seek...wait a minute...maybe you're trolling us with this idea <side-eye>.
-- the porpoise, Dec 12 2014


Most online commmunities have a "flag" function of some kind: here it's "mfd", elsewhere it's "mark as inappropriate" and the like.
-- FlyingToaster, Dec 12 2014


I like this idea but it does not go far enough. If a voter feels strongly enough about a post, one should be able to purchase extra down arrows to make that clear to all. Sheaves of arrows. I think it the US anyway, the Citizens United case makes clear that this is right and proper.
-- bungston, Dec 13 2014


I'm also in favor of the stack overflow model -- with that model, troll posts get pushed down and off the page.
-- sninctown, Dec 13 2014



random, halfbakery