If you can vote up you should be able to vote down.

End of story.

Any form of voting can be abused, but that doesn't mean you get rid of the option to do so altogether.

At present a downvote is a strong vote of disapproval, or casting a this vid does not belong on VideoSift vote. It makes sense to me that you would want people to at least have some idea of what is what before being able to make that call.

That said though, I don't particularly think that Bronze star is an appropriate bar... some people have been members since almost the start and have yet to achieve that (or have only recently got Bronze). I would say that those people should be able to downvote, even if they don't want to post lots of vids.
>> ^spoco2:

If you can vote up you should be able to vote down.
End of story.
Any form of voting can be abused, but that doesn't mean you get rid of the option to do so altogether.

But if you are going to downvote something, yet aren't willing to explain why even when asked or be at all accountable, you're a coward.

>> ^Gallowflak:

But if you are going to downvote something, yet aren't willing to explain why even when asked or be at all accountable, you're a coward.


Bullshit. ABSOLUTE bullshit.

It is non of YOUR business why a downvote was made. NON

You can ask until your face is purple, it is still non of your business.

an upvote is " I agree with this " a downvote is " I disagree with this "

I do not have to explain anything to you.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Gallowflak:
But if you are going to downvote something, yet aren't willing to explain why even when asked or be at all accountable, you're a coward.

Bullshit. ABSOLUTE bullshit.
It is non of YOUR business why a downvote was made. NON
You can ask until your face is purple, it is still non of your business.
an upvote is " I agree with this " a downvote is " I disagree with this "
I do not have to explain anything to you.


Ignoring content is the typical response to something you don't like on a site like Videosift. Downvotes are direct opposition to that content being on the sift. You should allow yourself to be engaged with if you're going to take action against someone else's contribution to the community.

You don't have to explain anything to anyone. I still think anyone who driveby downvotes is a little bitch.

Oh.. oh well then whatever, if you are just calling people little bitches then whatever, I can understand that. I thought you meant you were owed an explanation or something. Your opinion is your opinion no matter how fucked up someone else perceives it.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Oh.. oh well then whatever, if you are just calling people little bitches then whatever, I can understand that. I thought you meant you were owed an explanation or something. Your opinion is your opinion no matter how fucked up someone else perceives it.


Talking is good.

Talking can get your penis inside a vagina. Damn rights it is good.

It's frustrating to me that I seem unable to form strong opinions on many things. Like the current discussion of porn on the sift. I have an opinion, but I don't really care that much. It all just gets funnelled into that "You're for censorship/You're degrading the site" binary thing.

And downvotes - it's like using your horn in a car: it's kind of there for emergencies, but it's never really used in that context. Zappa's right - people downvote just because they disagree with you on a subject, not because you said anything inappropriate. I mean seriously - why downvote a comedy clip just because you didn't find it funny? But people do it.

But... I just don't care that much.

Sigh.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

People need a simple way to express a negative view on content. It has the added benefit of helping with managing that content. Too many down votes and a post is culled from the index - which is as it should be.

As Siftbot would say, every meat garden needs a little pruning.

That is the most disgusting visual image you have just inseminated into my mind-brain.>> ^dag:

... every meat garden needs a little pruning.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Really? Inseminated? I think that says more about you than me. >> ^kymbos:

That is the most disgusting visual image you have just inseminated into my mind-brain.>> ^dag:
... every meat garden needs a little pruning.

Gentlemen, I am sorely disappointed by the lack of downvotes on these comments.
(Are there consequences to comment downvotes?)

An interesting discussion, ZDM.

I see your point and there are people who abuse the current system.
But, I can't think of a better system that wouldn't take away the current ability to influence the publication of the video in question.

I well remember the first downvote I received. It felt as if I were slapped in the face, mostly because it was a drive-by. After bitching for a while I found the reasoning for the downvote was legitimate (IMO) and I killed the video in question.

I agree with @Gallowflak about people who downvote and refuse to answer questions as to why. What purpose would there be for that--other than to try to hurt, or anger, someone.

Well, that's just the way you interpreted it sex and how your mind works cock. You obviously tits have a filthy mind.>> ^dag:

Really? Inseminated? I think that says more about you than me.

There's a philosophical difference between a downvote on a video and a downvote on a comment.

On a video it's either "this does not belong on videosift" or by extension "this is so bad i don't want this on videosift", while a comment is close to "i don't like/agree with what was written here"

>> ^gwiz665:

There's a philosophical difference between a downvote on a video and a downvote on a comment.
On a video it's either "this does not belong on videosift" or by extension "this is so bad i don't want this on videosift", while a comment is close to "i don't like/agree with what was written here"


Hmmm, as someone who only recently gained the ability to downvote, I do it differently. A downvote on a video to me is just "this video isn't very good", regardless of the stance it's taking. Similarly a downvote on a comment has more to do with the merit of the argument rather than the position. I've upvoted people I disagree with who argued their point well, and downvoted because the comment is irrelevant, pointless, fallacious, etc.

Much as he annoys me, I try not to downvote @shinyblurry, because I believe he genuinely believes in what he's saying (regardless of how factually incorrect it might be).

Making a good argument, does not a good comment make - although presenting your point of view well, can certainly change a downvote to neutral for me. Unless it's just an opinion that's so antithetical to reason that I'd rather kill it off.

I think we agree on how we do it on videos, I just worded it differently. I upvote "bad opinions" in videos too, and usually downvote "bad videos".
>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^gwiz665:
There's a philosophical difference between a downvote on a video and a downvote on a comment.
On a video it's either "this does not belong on videosift" or by extension "this is so bad i don't want this on videosift", while a comment is close to "i don't like/agree with what was written here"

Hmmm, as someone who only recently gained the ability to downvote, I do it differently. A downvote on a video to me is just "this video isn't very good", regardless of the stance it's taking. Similarly a downvote on a comment has more to do with the merit of the argument rather than the position. I've upvoted people I disagree with who argued their point well, and downvoted because the comment is irrelevant, pointless, fallacious, etc.
Much as he annoys me, I try not to downvote @shinyblurry, because I believe he genuinely believes in what he's saying (regardless of how factually incorrect it might be).

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^gwiz665:
There's a philosophical difference between a downvote on a video and a downvote on a comment.
On a video it's either "this does not belong on videosift" or by extension "this is so bad i don't want this on videosift", while a comment is close to "i don't like/agree with what was written here"

Hmmm, as someone who only recently gained the ability to downvote, I do it differently. A downvote on a video to me is just "this video isn't very good", regardless of the stance it's taking. Similarly a downvote on a comment has more to do with the merit of the argument rather than the position. I've upvoted people I disagree with who argued their point well, and downvoted because the comment is irrelevant, pointless, fallacious, etc.
Much as he annoys me, I try not to downvote @shinyblurry, because I believe he genuinely believes in what he's saying (regardless of how factually incorrect it might be).


That's exactly it.

People don't downvote shinyblurry or bobknight33 or etc's videos/comments because of political idealogy (well i'm sure some do) They downvote because they commit numerous logical fallacies over and over again that are demonstrably incorrect. Shinyblurry's argument of having a personal experience, thus equating god as fact may work for him, but that does not give him grounds for him to make his evangelical "it's my faith, therefore it's also fact" arguments. I can't downvote myself, but I would if I could.

Just the other day, bobknight33 made his comment about how we're the ones who don't really know what the founders believed and they were all devout christians. This is a provably false statement. It has nothing to do with idealogy.

As i've stated in the past, people like them drop their bombs and run away. The vast majority of the time they never stick around to argue/defend their position. They just wait for the next controversial sift so they can drop their bomb again and run away. Sure shinyblurry will actually attempt to argue his position so he's one of the exceptions, but it's that same "I believe, therefore it's true" argument over and over again and it's a fallacy.

It's comments like this that make me wish we had a *double-upvote invocation for points.

Thanks, @VoodooV coming here to say what I wanted to say.
>> ^VoodooV:
That's exactly it.

People don't downvote shinyblurry or bobknight33 or etc's videos/comments because of political idealogy (well i'm sure some do) They downvote because they commit numerous logical fallacies over and over again that are demonstrably incorrect. Shinyblurry's argument of having a personal experience, thus equating god as fact may work for him, but that does not give him grounds for him to make his evangelical "it's my faith, therefore it's also fact" arguments. I can't downvote myself, but I would if I could.

Just the other day, bobknight33 made his comment about how we're the ones who don't really know what the founders believed and they were all devout christians. This is a provably false statement. It has nothing to do with idealogy.

I'll say a little bit about my experience here, since you brought it up @ZappaDanMan. The reason I signed up to videosift, initially, was to provide a counterpoint to the enormous amount of anti-christian videos I noticed being propelled into the top 15. There was no one here representing the other side of the argument, or posting any Christian videos, so I figured I would be that guy. However, I quickly found out that I was pretty unwelcome here, except, that is, for a few important exceptions. One is @dag. Dag has commented many times that he feels I am a valuable member of the community. Perhaps he recognizes the pitfalls of a lack of diversity in the sift economy. Quite often the comment sections, at least for anything related to religion, are echo chambers for militant anti-theists. That isn't a good thing if you want to have a broad-based appeal.

There are some individual users who have reached out to me, some openly like @enoch, most though in secret. The reason being is because from the beginning there was a concerted campaign to try to get rid of me. The first strategy was to downvote all of my videos and comments and deny my participation in the system. I am sure I am the most downvoted user of all the time. Can anyone (@lucky760) track that? There was a time when I couldn't get a video to last more than half a day. It wasn't because of the nonsense people are posting in this thread, it was because there was a group of people working against me to kill them all off. I have 18 discarded videos in my discarded posts folder. Granted not all of them were that great, but some were sincerely good. Can anyone else claim a number like that? I doubt it, because people don't generally treat eachother like that here.

When that didn't work there was another campaign waged to totally marginalize me by labeling me as a troll. Many people put me on ignore and advised others to do the same. I felt like I had entered into an Amish community and advised them to use zippers instead of buttons. That actually worked because at some point I decided to leave and stopped posting for awhile. I couldn't get any videos published, and every time I posted anywhere people would insult me, or ignore me. It was only because a few people reached out to me that I came back.

These days, it isn't as bad. People just generally ignore me and don't really downvote my videos that much. There has actually been somewhat of a softening towards me and I've gotten a few videos published, which surprised me. I also appreciate @ChaosEngine 's principaled stand and I wish more people thought that way. There have been some people who have consistently given me their votes (I won't name you because it will make you unpopular) even though I know they disagreed with the material. So I am not here to rail against the sift, because I appreciate the people who are being nicer to me, and I pray for all of you whether you like me or not.

The point I am making is that my experience completely affirms everything Zappa said. If you want further proof, just look at the amount of anti-religious vs. religious videos that have been sifted. There is no actual comparison. People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion) and that is why you don't see many videos that inform rather than denigrate religion on the sift.

see here we go with more fallacies.

"People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion)"

This is an untrue statement. Unless you've developed some mind reading abilities that I'm not aware of, you simply cannot know why people downvote.

You forget the most simple reason of all: Religion has zero basis in fact and/or reason, therefore it has zero grounds to be treated with any authority. especially in matters of public government."

If you're going to claim they just do it because of hate, you better: 1) back that up with actual evidence and arguments. and 2) ask yourself the very simple question: "If they do hate religion, do they have a good reason why?"

I'd be willing to bet the kids molested by priests can think of a view VERY GOOD reasons's why.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's true. I consider @shinyblurry to be a rare and important member of the community.

I gave proof in the thread, most notably the 18 discarded posts I have. I'm not going to debate religion with you here. If you want to debate me, then msg me and pick a topic.

>> ^VoodooV:

see here we go with more fallacies.
"People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion)"
This is an untrue statement. Unless you've developed some mind reading abilities that I'm not aware of, you simply cannot know why people downvote.
You forget the most simple reason of all: Religion has zero basis in fact and/or reason, therefore it has zero grounds to be treated with any authority. especially in matters of public government."
If you're going to claim they just do it because of hate, you better: 1) back that up with actual evidence and arguments. and 2) ask yourself the very simple question: "If they do hate religion, do they have a good reason why?"
I'd be willing to bet the kids molested by priests can think of a view VERY GOOD reasons's why.

Thank you

>> ^dag:

It's true. I consider @shinyblurry to be a rare and important member of the community.

unless you can read minds or they specifically state "I downvote because I hate religion" you can't judge intent that way.

But you're missing the point. It matters not what topic you discuss, if you commit a logical fallacy, people won't respect you and guess what, they're more likely to downvote you here.

understanding and avoiding logical fallacies is like...debate and discourse 101.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Funny thing is, the article on fallacies is one of the few things that both Wikipedia and Conservapedia agree on, both articles appear accurate. Of course, Conservapedia's examples are radically different

What I see you (and bobknight) do a lot is commit the "appeal to belief" fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

you can believe whatever you want to believe, but when you pass your belief off as fact in the public arena without anything to back it up, you lose any credibility you may have earned.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I gave proof in the thread, most notably the 18 discarded posts I have. I'm not going to debate religion with you here. If you want to debate me, then msg me and pick a topic.
>> ^VoodooV:
see here we go with more fallacies.
"People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion)"
This is an untrue statement. Unless you've developed some mind reading abilities that I'm not aware of, you simply cannot know why people downvote.
You forget the most simple reason of all: Religion has zero basis in fact and/or reason, therefore it has zero grounds to be treated with any authority. especially in matters of public government."
If you're going to claim they just do it because of hate, you better: 1) back that up with actual evidence and arguments. and 2) ask yourself the very simple question: "If they do hate religion, do they have a good reason why?"
I'd be willing to bet the kids molested by priests can think of a view VERY GOOD reasons's why.

As I said, if you want to msg me, we can discuss this further. I've posted many reasons why I said what I did, if you don't want to accept them at face value that's your choice.

>> ^VoodooV:

unless you can read minds or they specifically state "I downvote because I hate religion" you can't judge intent that way.
But you're missing the point. It matters not what topic you discuss, if you commit a logical fallacy, people won't respect you and guess what, they're more likely to downvote you here.
understanding and avoiding logical fallacies is like...debate and discourse 101.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Funny thing is, the article on fallacies is one of the few things that both Wikipedia and Conservapedia agree on, both articles appear accurate. Of course, Conservapedia's examples are radically different
What I see you (and bobknight) do a lot is commit the "appeal to belief" fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html
you can believe whatever you want to believe, but when you pass your belief off as fact in the public arena without anything to back it up, you lose any credibility you may have earned.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I gave proof in the thread, most notably the 18 discarded posts I have. I'm not going to debate religion with you here. If you want to debate me, then msg me and pick a topic.
>> ^VoodooV:
see here we go with more fallacies.
"People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion)"
This is an untrue statement. Unless you've developed some mind reading abilities that I'm not aware of, you simply cannot know why people downvote.
You forget the most simple reason of all: Religion has zero basis in fact and/or reason, therefore it has zero grounds to be treated with any authority. especially in matters of public government."
If you're going to claim they just do it because of hate, you better: 1) back that up with actual evidence and arguments. and 2) ask yourself the very simple question: "If they do hate religion, do they have a good reason why?"
I'd be willing to bet the kids molested by priests can think of a view VERY GOOD reasons's why.

@shinyblurry

I don't think you even read my post, which is another reason someone might feel compelled to downvote you. What's you're doing now is the equivalent of covering your ears and going LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALAA"

I'd be willing to argue at this point that religion has VERY little to do with why people downvote you.

shiny's got the five D's down pat: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!

You cherry picked 8 words out of my post and completely ignored everything I said which supports that statement. You don't want to discuss the substance of what I said; you are only looking for an angle so you can "win" the argument. You have given no evidence that further engagement on this subject will yield any fruit, and you continue to justify that conclusion which each subsequent post.

As I said, if you want to debate me, pick a topic a message me. There is really nothing else to say.

>> ^VoodooV:

@shinyblurry
I don't think you even read my post, which is another reason someone might feel compelled to downvote you. What's you're doing now is the equivalent of covering your ears and going LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALAA"
I'd be willing to argue at this point that religion has VERY little to do with why people downvote you.
shiny's got the five D's down pat: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!

At least demand money or such from Zappa if you are going to rob his thread. Shiny has the right idea, take it elsewhere.

I believe this topic is about downvoting and the purposes behind it.

I'm making my point and @shinyblurry is helping me prove it. The main thrust of zappa's post is about downvoting for ideological reasons and shiny is wrapping himself in the idea that he's "picked on" because sifters hate religion.

This is an untrue statement. regardless of the topic, people downvote you if you make a comment that's full of shit.

Shiny's own post makes the claim that he perceived that this site was full of anti-christian videos. I'd argue that this is yet another fallacy and probably just him projecting his own insecurities. Sure there are people here that are very anti-religion. But I'd argue that most people just want to call out the bullshit when they see it. I've argued on a few occasions that religion is not inherently good or bad, it's what you do with it that is good or bad.

I get that the sift wants to bring in a more diverse group, but make sure you're doing it for the right reasons. If you're just trying to be diverse for diversity's sake. Then it's already a failed venture. Because bringing in "token" groups just so you can cloak yourself in the veil of diversity has not played out well over the years in various venues and basically insults the people in those token groups because you're not bringing them in because they have something valid to say or because they can debate and communicate their viewpoints well, you're bringing them in just to fulfill a demographic.

We've had plenty of sifts where religious people DO have valid and thoughtful things to say that contribute to debate and discourse. Pick just about any topic and you'll find a sift both pro and con for it.

Doesn't matter if you're religious, atheist, liberal, conservative, X, Y, or Z. If you make shitty arguments that don't hold up, regardless of topic, you're going to get called out...period. This is the nature of the internet. As @Boise_Lib alluded to earlier, we've all been downvoted at some point and probably for good reason. Logic and reason doesn't discriminate

>> ^BoneRemake:

At least demand money or such from Zappa if you are going to rob his thread. Shiny has the right idea, take it elsewhere.

*frontpage

Printing this post atop the VideoSift homepage - frontpage requested by dotdude.

Downvoting an unsifted video because you don't like it? You might want to revisit that tactic. You are doubly empowering your opinion by doing that -- it takes two upvotes to counteract your single downvote in order to be published.

I think downvoting on videos is best used only if you don't think the video should NOT be on the Sift at all. That it is egregiously awful and denigrates the site.

My problem with the down-vote of a video is that it has the power to nullify an up-vote. If someone submits a video and it gets 15 up-votes and 6 down-votes the video does not get sifted. The opinions of 6 users outweighs the opinion of 15 users.

I think that's why many of us don't use it...because the video may not be my thing so why should I nullify someone else vote who does like it?

I think the up and down votes should be separated...this video got 15 up-votes and 6 down-votes and leave it at that. If you want to give the down-votes any power at all then at the very least it should have a majority of down-votes first.

>> ^VoodooV:

@shinyblurry
I don't think you even read my post, which is another reason someone might feel compelled to downvote you. What's you're doing now is the equivalent of covering your ears and going LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALAA"
I'd be willing to argue at this point that religion has VERY little to do with why people downvote you.
shiny's got the five D's down pat: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!


He's getting his arse kicked again in a public forum and would rather it not go any further ("msg me with a topic ").

By the way, I have always supported @shinyblurry's right to be here on the Sift.

I also had him on ignore for months.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

And shiny, I really appreciate the new tack you are taking here on the Sift. I think it is great.

I happened to see your admission on your profile page as to how you helped create such a toxic environment around you at the beginning of your tenure here. I did the same thing when I first got here, albeit less... monolithically, and I also had lessons to learn in communications.

Kindred opinionated spirits we are, right?

Hey, I don't think that is a fair comment.

In fact, I really appreciated that shiny attempted to take a conversation that was devolving into a two person confrontation out of the comment stream. That is new for shiny, and I think he should be applauded for the attempt rather than ridiculed.

I say good on shiny.



>> ^Deano:

>> ^VoodooV:
@shinyblurry
I don't think you even read my post, which is another reason someone might feel compelled to downvote you. What's you're doing now is the equivalent of covering your ears and going LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALAA"
I'd be willing to argue at this point that religion has VERY little to do with why people downvote you.
shiny's got the five D's down pat: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!

He's getting his arse kicked again in a public forum and would rather it not go any further ("msg me with a topic ").

Can we shrink this post down? (read more thingy)

This post is huge and for a newcomer to the site may be a bit confusing to see it on the front page.

I for one, Downvote videos that I don't think belong here. I don't do it often but I do on occasion. (And often with a comment to to poster.) Sometimes the video is offensive, sometimes it's done so poorly that I can't let it pass without doing something and sometimes it just doesn't rate (in my mind) as a great/fun/interesting video and needs to be sifted away. That's what we are here for right? Vote up the Gems and Sift out the Duds.

As for comments, I upvote comments from people that make good points or say something that I agree with. I downvote based not on their beliefs but on whether I appreciated it. If it's something I don't appreciate such as hate, factually wrong statements or inappropriate comments, then yes, I'll throw it a downvote. Why, because that's what it's there for.

I don't use it to censor ideas or thoughts. Not for beliefs and not for reasons of spite or loathing.
That's how I see it.

@VoodooV
while i totally agree that one cannot discern the intent of the person who cast the downvote,i feel @shinyblurry makes a valid point concerning his own experiences.
while circumstantial,18 scrubbed videos is not a normal,nor average,number.

i think i could make a case that those scrubbed videos (due to downvotes) directly correlate to a time on the sift when many were viewing shiny's comments and posts as trollish and confrontational.
and lets be honest...sometimes they were.

but there were a few posts of shiny's that were genuinely of good quality and thought-provoking and they too..were scrubbed.i even promoted a few even though i totally disagreed with the content.

which ties in to the point in which @ZappaDanMan is trying to make.some people vote more on how they feel about the person rather than the content of the video.he also alludes to a cult of personality and its a valid observation.

so while i agree with you that we cannot discern intent and i also agree with shiny that downvotes are more an irrational,emotional response,rather than a logical and thought-out vote but at the end of the day it does not matter.
why?
because they are votes and we all tend to vote with our hearts rather than our heads.

here is a small observation i have made over the years here on the sift.
totally non-scientific.just an observation:
ever notice when somebody posts a horrid,or venomous comment?
and it will have ZERO votes.neither UP nor DOWN.
until it receives ONE downvote and then what seems like minutes the downvotes start coming.like a torrent.

the same will happen with videos.
there is a reason for that.

speaking only for myself i rarely downvote a video and choose to abstain rather than downvote but i will downvote a comment if i find it offensive or un-necessarily attacking another sifter.(which i have been guilty of from time to time).

my videos have garnered more than their fair share of downvotes.
sometimes i understood why and othertimes i did not and i have never been shy in PMing that person to inquire why they downvoted and,to those peoples credit,they always responded.
that was very gracious of them to explain the thinking behind their downvote and i always appreciated the time they took to share their reasoning with me.

so in conclusion to my point (do i even have a point?).
even when we consider that some (or many) use downvoting as a passive-aggressive way to punish those they may deem unworthy or simply because they disagree.
the downvoting system is just as vital as the up-voting because it can promote discussion and interaction and that is always a good thing.
the positives far outweigh the negatives.

@shinyblurry is a perfect example of how interactions and attitudes can change on both sides of the spectrum.

if we do not interact with those we disagree with then we will be doomed to hold pre-conceptions and presumptions as inviolate and stagnate on our own hubris.

there are so many here on the sift that have surprised and delighted me by shattering my assumptions about them.
oftentimes it was the downvoting that sparked that interaction.

i think we all felt that sting that @Boise_Lib speaks of concerning our first downvote but if we can get past that initial slap in the face we can explore a whole new range of interaction and discussion in which we all can benefit and garner a much more dynamic understanding of people whom we may disagree with.

now that this rant has come to its conclusion i shall remind my gentle and kind readers that i shall be here all week and to not forget to tip their bartenders and waitresses.

thank you wisconsin!!
and good night!

On the topic of pro-religion posts, I wouldn't down-vote unless it's over the top offensive (though I don't think I ever have.) That's what the comment section is for. I can state my peace and leave an opinion. Some people are good at this, some people just blurt it out.

What discourages me is when my opinion is challenged. It's my opinion after all. I'm not saying you can't call me out when I say something stupid but don't spend many many posts trying to convince me that my opinion doesn't count for anything.

When I say this, I'm sorry, I have to point at you, @shinyblurry because this is what you do. You seem like a nice person and you sound firm in your faith (Good for you - I admire that). But I don't understand the way you come at people to try and convince them that they are incorrect and that your view is the only correct one. This only leads to comment wars and aggravation. Don't get me wrong, please comment, make your peace but don't keep posting and re-posting to tear someone else down. In the end it just crates animosity. Then people get their backs up against you and the downvoting begins because you don't let it go.

Sorry Shiny, to use you as an example, there are others here that do the same thing (such as @VoodooV above) and I see you were politely trying to avoid the debate this time - Kudos.

My point is, I don't think people downvote religious comments just because they are religious. I think they either don't agree with the facts or you have begun to preach at them. People don't like to be preached at. It's very condescending. I also think quoting passages as if they are absolute proof of a point is also offensive to a non-believer's intelligence. (no offense intended to believers intended.)

I myself have posted videos based on religion both pro and con. And yes, I too have noticed that the videos that are pro-religion are a harder sift. That's just a fact because the majority of the group doesn't identify with the content. That's just the way it is. I accept that. When people leave an anti-religious comment, I accept that too. What I don't do is start arguing with them because and tell them they are wrong. I have never had one of my religious posts downvoted into a discard (not that there have been more than a few.)

I'm with Sagemind - I rarely downvote anything, but will downvote hateful comments. The number of times I have spent time and effort articulating an alternative viewpoint, only to have that comment downvoted because it just wasn't what other people believed - I don't think that's the spirit of the downvote.

It also gets to me when I sift something obscure that is going to garner 10 votes if I'm lucky, and some thoughtless silly just downvotes it because it didn't appeal to them. Seriously? Destroy any chance of something getting sifted because you didn't like the title, or you didn't find it funny? Come on - that's vandalism. Sometimes it will then sit in my pqueue for months, then someone will promote it and it'll end up with 30-odd votes.

Ugh. I was checking to see where my popularly-downvoted comment above ranked in terms of all-time downvotedness, and let me tell you: it's a sewer in there.

Actually, now that I think about it - a downvote on an as-yet unsifted video has a disproportionate effect on a video. The tendencies of a few sifters can significantly affect what gets sifted and what doesn't. Maybe something should be done about this...

Like, downvotes on unsifted vids need two downvotes per point reduction? That would pretty much end 90% of the problem, as you rarely get two compulsive downvoters on any standard vid.

There, fixed that for you.

Of course, it won't help shinyblurry and his groupthink problems. Not sure anything will.

I don't ever downvote videos... I just don't upvote them. I will downvote comments though...