<p>EDIT: Here is a summary added also in reaction to various comments (some now deleted). </p>

<p><em>Downvoting is not constructive (and not intended to be). It should, mostly, express a view that a post is not useful, although whatever other reasons or motives people may hide remain indiscernible. Downvoting is not informative unless people explain why they downvote. Downvoting is part of the SE system and anyone is free to dislike it, not to use it, to use it very sparingly, or to express opinions on it, or on how it is used. How downvoting is used on CV is clearly germane for this Meta, but trying to argue against or change the system is a SE-wide matter. I don't see evidence that downvoting is out of control here on CV. I see plenty of evidence that some individuals get very upset at being downvoted, and I have some sympathy with that personally, but it is, given human nature, an inevitable side-effect of SE.</em>  </p>

<p>I'd be worried about "trolling", "ganging up", "mob behaviour" and "unreasonable downvoting" if ever I saw evidence of them, but I don't think we need any new mechanisms for dealing with bad practices. </p>

<p><strong>I find it disconcerting that some in this thread are so ready to infer people's state of mind, personally or collectively, from the fact of downvoting.</strong> Occasionally people do leave angry or nasty comments when they downvote. Then their attitude is plain, but that is out of order and should be handled by reminding people of the need for civility and by flagging bad cases for moderator attention. (Naturally, there is scope for disagreement about precisely what is angry or nasty. I think of myself as often candid but not nasty on purpose; who does?) </p>

<p>But often people do not add comments. When that happens, why they're downvoting is no more than a matter for surmise. </p>

<p>I can tell you my typical state of mind when I downvote a question or an answer after someone else has. It's that I agree with the previous downvoting. The question or answer is just wrong, or too poor to be acceptable. And I am not surprised when other people agree in turn. <strong>The polite, parsimonious, default assumption about downvoting is that people are exercising their privilege in good faith and with good reason. Only when you see explicit evidence to the contrary is action needed.</strong> </p>

<p>Apart from lack of research effort as grounds for downvoting a question, the main reason for downvoting anything is that it is not useful. To me, that certainly includes being unclear; if something is unclear, it can hardly be useful. It's clearly true that downvoting by itself is not constructive, but often when a post is unclear, it will be true that a downvoter will not be in a position to suggest any specific improvements. </p>

<p>That's not to deny that, like almost anybody else, I do get irritated or annoyed to myself at certain posts or even at certain people. </p>

<p>I won't discuss @Carl's detailed proposals here. They seem to range from the serious to the facetious and it's a small imposition on Meta to be expected to work out which is which. (I don't want people to leave their sense of humour behind when they enter Meta, but proposals for change have to be serious to be taken seriously.) The more crucial point, already made by @amoeba, is that new badges or changed limits on anything are system-wide matters and need to be floated on SE meta. </p>

<p>I have looked at some of the threads @Carl linked to and cannot see anything untoward there. Frankly, @Carl, the pattern I see in these and some of your other posts is this: </p>

<p>First, several of your questions are rather long-winded and come from a very individual perspective. You're proud to be a maverick! No problem there, but even statistical experts can find it hard to see what the question is and the comments can be as or more extensive as the answers. The biggest difficulty there is likely to be your frustration at not getting the kind of discussion you want. </p>

<p>Second, you do write vigorously and colourfully, but seem prone to exaggerated language and occasionally snap and snarl a little. Sometimes that is very entertaining; occasionally it is not constructive. A pugnacious style is sometimes a spur: people don't always back off, but give as good as they get. </p>

<p>But I can't see evidence that people are downvoting you unreasonably. </p>

<p>A recent thread was closed and the OP protested, although not in these words, "The question is clear to me. Why is it being closed as unclear?" The point, naturally, is that a question has to be clear to others to be any use or interest. </p>

<p>In a forum, people will disagree and can and should express their disagreement in various ways. This happens through downvoting, which is not the tool of first preference but exists to be used when appropriate. It's designed by the system and needs to be practised to maintain a healthy archive, weeding out or limiting less fruitful questions.</p>

<p>(I don't like being downvoted either: who does?) </p>

<p>EDIT As at 10 November 2018 the question starts </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Note the approximately equal opinions +13/-12 on this question.
  Clearly, this question divides our site members into approximately
  equal groups of opinions for downvoting.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This comment on the current Meta thread reflects the entire issue under discussion. </p>

<p>No; it doesn't show anything except that up and downvotes for the question are about equal. My answer pushes what I see as a key negative principle: Unless people explain a downvote, you can't reliably infer what lies behind it. And people aren't always candid even then. (In the case of one person no longer active and an answer of mine, they gave generally positive comments but then promptly downvoted it. I could tell this because there were no other downvotes and that person received a badge for their first downvote on the same day. This was a person who often ranted against being downvoted without explanation, but themselves gave many more downvotes than were ever explained. But that's rare.) </p>

<p>In this case, I can readily imagine all sorts of different reasons for up and down votes. </p>

<ul>
<li><p>Bang on! </p></li>
<li><p>We should be discussing this, even if there really isn't a problem. </p></li>
<li><p>I found this provocative. </p></li>
<li><p>I found this entertaining. </p></li>
<li><p>There isn't a problem. </p></li>
<li><p>There may be a problem, but this doesn't help. </p></li>
<li><p>I don't like the style of this. </p></li>
<li><p>I don't agree with the specific proposals here. </p></li>
</ul>

<p>And so on. All those reasons are pure speculation (but to my mind can't be ruled out either, given various answers, comments, etc. and what is evident generally from members' attitudes and behaviour).</p>

<p>Then again, @Carl writes </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Surely there are users who do not feel that downvoting is broken.
  Those users surely would not object to tweaking downvoting to better
  serve those of us who do feel it is broken.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No "surely" about the second even granting the first, so far as I am concerned. (Surely those in favour of peace wouldn't mind a small war, given those who want one?   Surely those in favour of letting people decide what they do on X wouldn't mind banning this and that aspects of X given people who disagree?) </p>

<p>If downvoting is not broken, there is no reason to fix it or even tweak it. In total abstraction, I can readily agree that some downvotes are not deserved,   or given for reasons that aren't admirable, or given for the wrong reasons, but who is to say which they are? Almost all I know about are my own downvotes. </p>

<p>This thread is saved from ill-will and rancour because @Carl comes over as a well meaning and thoughtful person, perhaps despite his colourful and combative style, but  we have to agree that there is evidence of inappropriate behaviour before we can decide what best to do about it. </p>
