4 Replaced down-mod with down-vote and removed the dash in favour of a hyphen
source | link

After tinkering way too much, I've come to the opinion that there's no great reason for down-moddingvoting a question.

Remember the old saying "There are no stupid questions"—wellquestions" - well, I think that applies here.

  • If the question is too vague, leave a response to that effect (or vote up a comment that states that already).
  • If the question contains a typographic or syntactic problem, edit the question for clarity.
  • If the question is outright spam, or abusive, flag it as such.

But down-moddingvoting a question? What's the point? If the question is naive you can simply answer it.

Down-moddingvoting lacks any good use cases (as described above) but worse than that, it is open to abuse:

  • If you don't like the person who asked it, you might down-modvote it.
  • If you don't like the topic, you might down-modvote it.
  • If you don't like the religious or political beliefs of the question, you might down-modvote it.

Down-moddingvoting now attracts a penalty to the down-modder'svoter's rep, that's an interesting development, but I think the simpler and more correct variation would be stop the ability to down-modvote a question.

After tinkering way too much, I've come to the opinion that there's no great reason for down-modding a question.

Remember the old saying "There are no stupid questions"—well, I think that applies here.

  • If the question is too vague, leave a response to that effect (or vote up a comment that states that already).
  • If the question contains a typographic or syntactic problem, edit the question for clarity.
  • If the question is outright spam, or abusive, flag it as such.

But down-modding a question? What's the point? If the question is naive you can simply answer it.

Down-modding lacks any good use cases (as described above) but worse than that, it is open to abuse:

  • If you don't like the person who asked it, you might down-mod it.
  • If you don't like the topic, you might down-mod it.
  • If you don't like the religious or political beliefs of the question, you might down-mod it.

Down-modding now attracts a penalty to the down-modder's rep, that's an interesting development, but I think the simpler and more correct variation would be stop the ability to down-mod a question.

After tinkering way too much, I've come to the opinion that there's no great reason for down-voting a question.

Remember the old saying "There are no stupid questions" - well, I think that applies here.

  • If the question is too vague, leave a response to that effect (or vote up a comment that states that already).
  • If the question contains a typographic or syntactic problem, edit the question for clarity.
  • If the question is outright spam, or abusive, flag it as such.

But down-voting a question? What's the point? If the question is naive you can simply answer it.

Down-voting lacks any good use cases (as described above) but worse than that, it is open to abuse:

  • If you don't like the person who asked it, you might down-vote it.
  • If you don't like the topic, you might down-vote it.
  • If you don't like the religious or political beliefs of the question, you might down-vote it.

Down-voting now attracts a penalty to the down-voter's rep, that's an interesting development, but I think the simpler and more correct variation would be stop the ability to down-vote a question.

3 "typographic or semantic"? doesn't make sense to lump these in together; other formatting
source | link

After tinkering way too much, I've come to the opinion that there's no great reason for down-modding a question. no great reason for down-modding a question.

Remember the old saying "There are no stupid questions" -- wellquestions"—well, I think that applies here.

If the question is too vague, then you can leave a response to that effect.

If the question contains a typographic or semantic problem -- you can edit the question for clarify (or someone with enough reputation can do that).

If the question is outright spam, or abusive, you can flag it as such.

  • If the question is too vague, leave a response to that effect (or vote up a comment that states that already).
  • If the question contains a typographic or syntactic problem, edit the question for clarity.
  • If the question is outright spam, or abusive, flag it as such.

But down-modding a question? What's the point?

  If the question is naive you can simply answer it.

Down-modding lacks any good use cases (as described above) but worse than that, it is open to abuse.:

If you don't like the person who asked it, you might down-mod it. If you don't like the topic, you might down-mod it. If you don't like the religious or political beliefs of the question, you might down-mod it.

  • If you don't like the person who asked it, you might down-mod it.
  • If you don't like the topic, you might down-mod it.
  • If you don't like the religious or political beliefs of the question, you might down-mod it.

Down-modding now attracts a penalty to the down-modder's rep..., that's an interesting development, but I think the simpler and more correct variation would be stop the ability to down-mod a questionstop the ability to down-mod a question.

After tinkering way too much, I've come to the opinion that there's no great reason for down-modding a question.

Remember the old saying "There are no stupid questions" -- well I think that applies here.

If the question is too vague, then you can leave a response to that effect.

If the question contains a typographic or semantic problem -- you can edit the question for clarify (or someone with enough reputation can do that).

If the question is outright spam, or abusive, you can flag it as such.

But down-modding a question? What's the point?

  If the question is naive you can simply answer it.

Down-modding lacks any good use cases (as described above) but worse than that, it is open to abuse.

If you don't like the person who asked it, you might down-mod it. If you don't like the topic, you might down-mod it. If you don't like the religious or political beliefs of the question, you might down-mod it.

Down-modding now attracts a penalty to the down-modder's rep... that's an interesting development, but I think the simpler and more correct variation would be stop the ability to down-mod a question.

After tinkering way too much, I've come to the opinion that there's no great reason for down-modding a question.

Remember the old saying "There are no stupid questions"—well, I think that applies here.

  • If the question is too vague, leave a response to that effect (or vote up a comment that states that already).
  • If the question contains a typographic or syntactic problem, edit the question for clarity.
  • If the question is outright spam, or abusive, flag it as such.

But down-modding a question? What's the point? If the question is naive you can simply answer it.

Down-modding lacks any good use cases (as described above) but worse than that, it is open to abuse:

  • If you don't like the person who asked it, you might down-mod it.
  • If you don't like the topic, you might down-mod it.
  • If you don't like the religious or political beliefs of the question, you might down-mod it.

Down-modding now attracts a penalty to the down-modder's rep, that's an interesting development, but I think the simpler and more correct variation would be stop the ability to down-mod a question.

2 Consistent wrt. "down-mod" (but is it correct?). Minor edit: grammar/spelling/case/punctation/etc.
source | link

After tinkering way too much, i'veI've come to the opinion that there's no great reason for down-modding a question.

Remember the old saying "There are no stupid questions" -- well iI think that applies here.

If the question is too vague, then you can leave a response to that effect.

If the question contains a typographic or semantic problem -- you can edit the question for clarify (or someone with enough reputation can do that).

If the question is outright spam, or abusive, you can flag it as such.

But down-modding a question? What's the point?

If the question is naive you can simply answer it.

Down-modding lacks any good use cases (as described above) but worse than that, it is open to abuse.

If you don't like the person who asked it, you might down mod-mod it. If you don't like the topic, you might down mod-mod it. If you don't like the religious or political beliefs of the question, you might down mod-mod it.

Down-modding now attracts a penalty to the down-modder's rep... that's an interesting development, but iI think the simpler and more correct variation would be stop the ability to downmoddown-mod a question.

After tinkering way too much, i've come to the opinion that there's no great reason for down-modding a question.

Remember the old saying "There are no stupid questions" -- well i think that applies here.

If the question is too vague, then you can leave a response to that effect.

If the question contains a typographic or semantic problem -- you can edit the question for clarify (or someone with enough reputation can do that)

If the question is outright spam, or abusive, you can flag it as such.

But down-modding a question? What's the point?

If the question is naive you can simply answer it.

Down-modding lacks any good use cases (as described above) but worse than that, it is open to abuse.

If you don't like the person who asked it, you might down mod it. If you don't like the topic, you might down mod it. If you don't like the religious or political beliefs of the question, you might down mod it.

Down-modding now attracts a penalty to the down-modder's rep... that's an interesting development, but i think the simpler and more correct variation would be stop the ability to downmod a question.

After tinkering way too much, I've come to the opinion that there's no great reason for down-modding a question.

Remember the old saying "There are no stupid questions" -- well I think that applies here.

If the question is too vague, then you can leave a response to that effect.

If the question contains a typographic or semantic problem -- you can edit the question for clarify (or someone with enough reputation can do that).

If the question is outright spam, or abusive, you can flag it as such.

But down-modding a question? What's the point?

If the question is naive you can simply answer it.

Down-modding lacks any good use cases (as described above) but worse than that, it is open to abuse.

If you don't like the person who asked it, you might down-mod it. If you don't like the topic, you might down-mod it. If you don't like the religious or political beliefs of the question, you might down-mod it.

Down-modding now attracts a penalty to the down-modder's rep... that's an interesting development, but I think the simpler and more correct variation would be stop the ability to down-mod a question.

    Post Migrated Here from stackoverflow.com
1 Post Made Community Wiki
source | link