- A "downvote" will move an answer farther down the page, (an upvote, vice versa).
- According to the instructors of this Udemy course, internal social media research found that posts are more likely to get more engagement the higher up they appear in lists.
So... A post is new, it has one other "zero-rated" answer, post an answer yourself, vote down another answer, you get prime real estate... That smells like a conflict of interest.
It wouldn't fly for an athlete to sit on a judges' panel while also playing in the same game. Should that principle apply here?
I'm sure there are algorithms and system checks on people who do this. But, frankly it shouldn't be allowed at all, unless there is a good reason, which I would sincerely invite (honestly).
Ideally, all voting "should" be disabled when answering, including up/down-voting on the OP itself. But, the world isn't perfect, I respect that there may be lots of snags with that, and it might be under discussion already.
I'm just a new guy looking for wisdom from the high-reps. Teach me and teach us all...
Should voting—on other answers or on the question itself or at least down-voting—be disabled or automatically retracted on a question that a user answers?
It would solve this issue: If you just witnessed tactical downvoting, is it a reportable offense?
And addresses in more detail this: The answer to tactical downvoting problem?
After 20 downvotes, I have decided to keep this question up without regret because the discussion and answers show that many users on SE want to be both plaintiff and juror, athlete and ref, explaining why they believe this to be fair, and knowing that is very useful.
After this question was closed: This is indeed above my head, though I hold that this is a unique question because it addresses the larger matter of "conflict of interest" in having a say in too many spheres; it's not a "pure dup", only a "near dup". BUT as the user who asked, I now see that this may be a "bad" question for two reasons: 1. It heavily is subjective, depending on an individual's view of "fairness" and how many spheres/means of influence are "too many". We humans don't seem to agree on what "justice" even is, so we can't act as though we discuss "justice and fairness" objectively. 2. The matter really can only be answered with a clear yes or no by an employee who sees the algorithms and also is a mod who has dealt with the problems; that's a tall order. As the new guy, while I indeed feel this needs to be at least discussed directly, I also think I deserve the downvotes merely on account of having so much to learn.