Votes tell of the public opinion of a post. It is not accurate at all if not for the comments, which even then could be interpreted differently. Down-votes would give a straightforward response as to the posts’ quality.
I don’t think we should have a down-vote feature, like on reddit. If there is a post which is not good, no one will upvote it. If it has unwanted content, you can flag it. That seems enough for me. Downvoting can introduce bad behavior.
It’s not a bad idea. I actually kind of agree that only having a thumbs up is a bit “linear” but adding a thumbs down wouldn’t have a positive effect in this community. I still think that the best step into a better upvoting system for CS would be to limit the amount of upvotes someone can give per person and per barracks. And giving the upvotes a function that transcends a measure of a post quality or likability.
I like this idea. Your ability to give likes could then become a currency. I would suggest that the currency be quite plentiful, though. Sometimes a like and feeling like the community cares is all it takes to help a lonely warrior soldier on.
I’m sure it wouldn’t be too hard to find the sweet spot of how many likes everyone has to spend. Somewhere in the middle between having enough to go around and a limited supply to maximize the value of a like (or vote or whatever it will be called).
Much of it’s in the mind, right?
In my opinion, I can see this being abused like how it is on reddit and other similarly built social media sites. I like the system the way it is.