Voting down nodes for the pure reason that they were written by someone is stupid. Whether to vote + or - should only depend on the content of the particular node.

I'll admit it - sometimes I do go through the new writeups of a noder or two (or three) to see what kind of new crap they've written. Often I can't bring myself to downvote a number of their nodes and sometimes I end up even upvoting a couple.

The bottom line is - vote for the quality of the writeup, do not vote based on spite.

---

Cloth - E2 nuke requests are a strong statement. Especially for nodes which are not yours. Voting is democratic.

Nobody actually took the time to explain exactly what it is...

Systematic downvoting is just voting down large numbers of writeups due to who the author is, without regard for the content. Often done by going to the user search and just looking at one writeup after another, voting on each in sequence, though sometimes it is more random, and may just be a grudge held by a noder causing them to downvote each writeup they run across without hunting for them.

Suppose, just suppose...

I'm not saying I systematically downvote, mind you - because I don't. Still, just for the sake of argument, consider the fact that every user has a finite number of votes.

I tend to use my allotment of votes to upvote good WUs. I like to encourage the good writers, rather than chastise the duffers. But I always reserve a fraction of my votes (call it one or two votes) for downvotes, to be used on especially deserving WUs. When I come across something that is just miserably bad, and not worthy of the time it took me to read it, I try to do my best for the general quality of E2 by downvoting it. I don't indulge in asking the editors to nuke it - the editors decide that. However, if lots of other E2ians feel the same way as me, I feel confident that it will be zapped, sooner or later.

So, how does this tie in with systematic downvoting? Well, it happens that I encounter a particular noder whose talent might be better spent elsewhere (say, on the walls of his high school's bathrooms). Then, having learned that this person is incapable of writing something that lives up to even the lowest standards, I make it a point to look at what else he has done. If his other work is as bad, it gets my daily downvote.

Is this systematic downvoting? Some would call it that. But, trust me, there is no rancour involved. I generally /msg the person in question to advise him what I think is wrong with the WU, before using the downvote. However, characteristically, most of the people to whom this rule applies never reply, nor do they take steps to improve the quality of their WU.

In which case, I say - that is a downvote well spent.

There is a distinction to be made between systematic downvoting, which is driven by spite, and consistent downvoting, which is motivated by a sense of one's duty as a peer editor.

Systematic downvoting means deliberately and methodically going through a fellow noder's writeups and giving each a negative vote, regardless of the quality one might perceive in what one reads there. It is motivated by malice; the thought of incurring experience point loss to someone personally outweighs the Everything cultural imperative to cast positive votes for quality material.

Consistent downvoting, however, means deliberately and methodically going through a fellow noder's writeups and giving each the vote you feel it deserves in terms of style, content, and appropriateness — and finding consistently that the material is of substandard quality. It is motivated by the desire to cull Everything of that which the voter feels doesn't belong.

There are many schools of thought on Everything regarding the proper use of votes and the role of experience. The Self-Punchers, including Randofu, weStLY, and Golem, prefer to be outside of the experience and voting system, which they view as confining, or inappropriate for their personal use of Everything. This is an extreme and respected form of that XP Stoicism which is popular among the eschelons of users. Systematic downvoters, as I already mentioned, are much-maligned. The vast majority of noders, however, are divided between two camps: Those who believe in using only positive votes and who feel that negative votes are entirely inappropriate to Everything, and those who believe that downvotes are occasionally the appropriate response to poor writing, perhaps to be accompanied by a private message to the offending party.

This bifurcation of users has lead to a debate regarding what should be done with systematic downvoters. Some users have proposed that all voting be tracked and abnormal behaviour flagged, either for the attention of the victim of the alleged systematic downvoting or for the attention of an editor or god.

Currently, Everything keeps track of whether or not you have voted on a particular writeup, as well as every writeup's reputation. To track the behaviour of voters would, of course, require keeping track of whether they voted a writeup up or down. It also requires that this information become available to general (non-Blockstacker) users, and is intended to serve as a tool for controlling the behaviour of others.

These measures would be required to control systematic downvoting without actually abolishing downvoting altogether. Appeals to honour, of course, are not sufficiently binding for those who would seek to delimit the abuse of downvotes. However, I believe that any observation or policing of votes would be an unacceptably oppressive measure.

Everything quality control is based on the principle of secret ballot voting. The whole point of the secret ballot is that you can't be held accountable for the vote you cast. In principle, this liberates the voter from partisan pressure and allows the voter to vote as his conscience dictates. The flipside of this, of course, is that voters without conscience are not called to task.

Downvoting can be abused, but I think upvoting is just as abused. That potential for abuse is the price we pay for having both freedom and privacy, which are both essential to our autonomy on Everything — which is, in turn, essential to our mission.

How To Be a Systematic Downvoter

Introduction

Now, you're wondering, is this one of those for Dummies books, that doesn't tell me anything useful? No, it isn't. You've decided to be a systematic downvoter, because someone pissed you off in the catbox or in a writeup. Here is a step by step guide in your new quest.

Find a target

Ideally, your target should be reasonably prolific, otherwise, you won't be able to vote them down enough. If they are too prolific, you may not have enough votes to bother them.

Don't fall into the trap

Most DVers fall into a trap of downvoting each and every writeup ever noded by the target. Don't do this. Doing this quickly reveals yourself to them, and now the target will mentally add "1" to all her nodes' reputation, and get to brag in the catbox about her stalker.

Also, beware the clever noder! They may apply detective skills to tracking you down!

Find the target's best nodes

Learn her style. Understand what nodes get chinged. Don't ever downvote these writeups, especially not within moments of appearance in ENN. A writeup that drops to -1 and then to 4 is evidence of your existence.

Now you can strike

When you see a new writeup by your target, go read it. Does it look like it'll get a lot of upvotes? If so, pass on it. Is it more of a mediocre, filling in the nodegel sort of writeup? DV it!

Your goal

Remember, your goal isn't to make the target lose XP. If the target is spending all of her votes, she'll expect to gain 70% of her votes back as XP. You're only causing her 33% of your votes as a loss in XP - and she has less writeups for you to spend on than she has writeups to spend on. And each of her new writeups gets another free XP.

Your goal is to make her question, every time she hits the Create it as a: Person/Place/Idea/Thing, whether or not she'd be better off posting to Slashdot.