Would RallyPoint be better if it required an explanation when a member down votes?

SSG Burns - that's an interesting idea. At least now you know who gives you a thumbs down, since you get notified via email.<div><br></div><div>It seems like there may be a desire to get an "explanation" for a thumbs down, like it would contribute to some sort of closure or understanding. I would suggest that 1) perhaps the comments they would be forced to provide wouldn't actually achieve this goal, and 2) maybe one can just assume that a thumbs down is a de facto "I disagree with you." -- Would reading those 4 words actually add that much value, if that is what they chose to put down?</div><div><br></div><div>I think an assumption in your goal is that if somebody is forced to provide comments, then they will make a self-contained rational argument against your own comments, and you could then achieve some greater level of enlightenment. I do not think this would actually happen. Some people just disagree or dislike what they see sometimes.</div><div><br></div><div>However, we always listen to the RallyPoint community. Let's see how many votes up this question gets!</div><div><br></div><div>P.S An alternative we have plans for is to create a minimum influence score requirement before one can vote anything down... to avoid new members from creating trouble before really understanding the community.</div>

Hmmm...how do you respectfully tell a SFC to keep sippin' that haterade? This will do :)

I need an open palm icon to slap a fool once in a while!