My personal rule is that I don't downvote nodes without actually looking at what they say. As long as you read all my nodes, together with the context if they are replies, you can downvote all my nodes.

> My personal rule is that I don't downvote nodes without actually looking at what they say

Neither do I. Occasionally he also gets an upvote.

I'm in a situation to censor necessary down-votes because I think "more of them and they'll ALL be deleted again".

Cheers Rolf

( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

And frankly, since the first several downvotes could boost your XP, it might be hard to distinguish between XP-whoring and a campaign to discourage a spewer of falsehoods.

That said, on to your specific questions: Were you to conduct a vendetta based on poisonality, programming preferences or other inappropriate^*1 reasons for downvoting, the Gods (and Tye in particular, in his incarnation as a deity) may have the power to invalidate such votes.) And he has posted (finding it is left as an exercise to those with more ambition than I have at this moment) a fairly detailed explanation of the XP-loss-algorithm.

^*1 "inappropriate," that is, for some value of slease, error, obnoxiousness, etc., that I suspect neither you nor I can define in 20 words or fewer.

OT: For me, the capability of downvoting the upvoters of some of the worst SOPWs posted here -- such as the gimme's; the repeated requests for solutions to problems for which the OP has already been given solutions, etc... -- would be a bene.

Update: look for "dog votes" -- an indication you've exceeded the downvote tolerance in tye's rule.

> you might want, instead, to write well-considered replies as correctives.

I already do, but it starts to conflict with the "don't feed the trolls rule" and a day has limited hours.

BTW: He is proven to be immune against critic and sarcasm.

Cheers Rolf

( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

Although I disagree with "replies past the first post" reasoning, I think pemungkah's advice of disengaging is right on the mark -- I hate to get all trite but 'you can lead a horse to water ....'

-derby

I now think the best way, based on recent experience in controversy here, is to reply once, then disengage (defnitely by post, possibly by vote). Replies past the first post and response generally end up in horrible, dark, and uninformative places. I've put myself on a one-reply diet now.

There is not enough time in the day, and not always enough meat in the post, to go replying even once

Sometimes all one can do is downvote and move on

Looks very trollish to reflexively reply this reply is offtopic, factually erroneous ... and this guy won't stop posting them

It's hard to find, that's why I ask!

Maybe here History now influences voting

I already observed my down-votes vanishing after a day.

Could also be that this "no significant down-votes" mechanism is interfering and causing a misconception... (?)

I would be glad to hear that history doesn't invalidate down-votes! =)

Cheers Rolf

( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

Could also be that this "no significant down-votes" mechanism is interfering and causing a misconception... (?)

I believe that is the only thing that is happening.

- tye        

So how many per day, or which percentage of my votes can I dedicate to his propaganda?

Prop-a-gand-a: ... uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.

Your use of the word propaganda in this context is itself progranda. You are using the negative connutations of that word to induce an emotional response to cause the reader to see your opinion, and your actions in support of your opinion as virtuous.

They may be, but it would be better to avoid using propaganda to counter what you see as propaganda, and stick to rational justifications.

Hi! Anonymous Monk here again.

To those of you who've upvoted the above comment, thank you! I assume you did so because you understood it to be telling someone to be nice. (And shouldn't we all be nice?)

Unfortunately for me, Anonymous Monk, I now realize that my earlier statements have major flaws. In fact, there are so many obvious flaws that I feel like I must have been a different person when I wrote the comment above.

• My definition of propaganda is not correct. Oops, I guess I should have looked it up before correcting someone based on its meaning.
• This purported definition is pedantry. Pedantry is a bullying form of rhetoric, a cheap form of argument from authority, if you will. What was I thinking? As we see from my first point, it wasn't to establish fact.
• My argument that calling something propaganda is itself propaganda is specious. Worse, my phrase "in this context" is disingenuous, since any context in which the word "propaganda" is not freighted with negative connotations would be non-operative, e.g., as in a discussion of the etymology of the word.
• Even worse I hide my warped reasoning behind a barrage of pseudo-intellectual phrases (which would have come across better if only I had used spell check!) to reach a conclusion that the OP is actively running a campaign of counter-propaganda. At the end of my second paragraph I have imputed that the OP is himself a propagandist. That is where you upvoters probably got the idea that the OP was not being nice. However, I went back to the original post and could not find out how the question of wanting downvoting to be counted was a form of counter-propaganda. In my enthusiasm for smacking down anyone who uses the word propaganda I overreached and started rebuking non-existent actions. Gosh, if it weren't for the fact I am a faceless entity, I might have to be worried about being charged with libel!

Anyway, dear upvoters, I'm sure that by my last sentence, where I, in my role of goody-goody objective authority, call upon the OP to use rationality as the basis of discourse, you were sure and certain that I had made a stand for civility against the evil forces of strong opinion and should be endorsed accordingly. Again, I thank you.

But now I address those who didn't upvote me. I ask that you forgive me, Anonymous Monk, for crafting such a mistaken, sanctimonious, supercilious and illogical chastisement that must seem to have been crafted by a pretentious lackwit truckling to the politically correct "don't use words that can possibly offend anyone" crowd. I promise you that in the future, I, Anonymous Monk will do better.

... and, alas, worse.

(Maybe I should increase my lithium dosage?)

sarcasm++ :)

thanks, very entertaining! xD

Cheers Rolf

( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

-- To those of you who've upvoted the above comment, thank you! I assume you did so because you understood it to be telling someone to be nice. (And shouldn't we all be nice?)

O'fanku 4 showin' uz d'errs ov uz ways. Innit.
It wer st'pid ov uz 2 fink dat wez cud dezid 4 uzzelves 'ow wez can blow uz bling votes.
P'aps u can uz yor god-gi'n spidy skills 2 make only the rite bu'on 'sply so wez paw deluznol b4k4s dont do it some more.
Wez marvell a'youz skillz 2 sus d'trrof. Props innit man.