also, imagine a big discussion. Where people write 50 words and one responds with “I disagree.” and responds to explain why one detail is wrong.
This is easy to be missunderstood as “all/most of those 50words are wrong”. So i like the force to explain downvotes as separation between criticism and aggreeing stuff.
When debates get heated, people will forget that. They will forget to cite at all. They will downvote like hell. And all that makes debating culture difficult.
And i can tell from personal experience, that people do not explain their downvotes. You have to ask and even then, only some answer.
With that, i can tell you: the current way won’t lead to constructive learning, where people understand each other.
also, imagine a big discussion. Where people write 50 words and one responds with “I disagree.” and responds to explain why one detail is wrong.
This is easy to be missunderstood as “all/most of those 50words are wrong”. So i like the force to explain downvotes as separation between criticism and aggreeing stuff.
When debates get heated, people will forget that. They will forget to cite at all. They will downvote like hell. And all that makes debating culture difficult.
And i can tell from personal experience, that people do not explain their downvotes. You have to ask and even then, only some answer.
With that, i can tell you: the current way won’t lead to constructive learning, where people understand each other.