Lets see how a downvote without a comment explaining the reason, is like a critical sneak attack:
- We don't know who did it.
- We don't know why they did it.
- The target can't defend him/herself.
- The target can't adapt and learn from it.
- The target can't improve what he/she was doing.
- The one who attacks isn't challenged in absolutely any way.
"Forcing a comment will end in even worse results." at https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/2373/222324
why? how? ppl doing the harm will complain more? how can that be bad??? less worse than not knowing why we got downvoted, that's for sure.
So I request this alternative message and feature:
"If someone, that downvotes, comment in the next 2 hours, all downvotes will be kept, otherwise all downvotes will be cancelled." (this refreshes every 2h after a new downvote)
Now that is a great incentive to let someone take an honorable action!
If you readed til here, make it sure to further read this BEFORE creating your equivalent/duplicate question about this same subject (I wont edit above to keep it as raw as I used to think :))
(Suggestion) Btw, from the comments I came to this:
I think the "taking the downvote personal" instead of being "about the question/answer itself" problem arises from the fact of the personal penalizations we receive (or we see others receiving) when we have little points on that account, like we cant do many things when we have little points.
If we could, for ex. vote something up/down but that vote be "ignored" by the system until we reach a minimum score to validate these votes we cast (so it would keep the votes we cast and our effort on reading and understanding and voting wouldnt be discarded), it would lower the side effect of personalizing the downvote, helping on keeping the feeling about the downvote limited to the question it-self, instead of a personal practical/usage kind of punishment.
In short, let newcomers do all basic things, but only make these actions available to everyone after we have enough points to grant what we did has enough quality to be made public. What would be a further incentive on contributing for sure :)
Obs.: I just found an answer deserving a downvote.
The user had just a few points above 100.
If I downvoted him, he would be prevented from several actions in the network.
I saw other of his answers, they were ok, had effort on it, but I couldnt upvote any of them yet.
If I had downvoted I would help the network itself what is good, but I would mess his usability of the network what is bad.
So, we that care not only for the network but also for the ppl using it (what is the network w/o ppl? nothing) are thrown in a dilemma.
If I downvote he will be forced to put more effort on his answers, what is good, but can he? does he have such time/energy/knowledge? how long his actions will be limited on the network? will he simply giveup?
So, I wont downvote his answer right now, and that is bad for the network, but I know (I feel) I am doing the overall right thing, and that is what matters to me.
Also, that subject had more than 11K visualizations, and NOBODY downvoted it! someone should begin trying to really understand why as apparently my argumentation is not enough.
(Suggestion) about possible anonymous comments:
I think, if comments could be made anonymously (may be only for ppl with enough score to do so), then they would be more willing to provide help about their downvotes w/o fear of retaliation.