Hi Magenta, I do agree and understand the concern and rationale. BTW, I always enjoy your very considerate and well thought out posts.
I do believe that a well managed 'QA' response could serve as a forcing function to mitigate against the more 'hurtful' posts with a few well thought out constraints. for example:
- limit 1 'QA' response for every 25-50 'Like' responses
- a QA only has an effect if 5 other people QA the same post/poster
- The poster is notified every time 5 people QA'd their post and their Rep Power is deducted by ~5 (for example)
- limit 1 'QA' response to the same person until a 'QA' has been given to at least 5-10 other people
- QA responses should be anonymous - to avoid any unwarranted retaliation or presumption of personal attacks
- QA statistics could be reported to moderators - as I suspect some very telling outcomes will be deduced.
- individual QA trends could be tallied and reported to determine any bias - report/mitigate personal attacks.
- popular QA trends would indicate the recipients of the most QAs from the CC audience - ie the silent majority...
The spirit and intent is to implement the notion of a checks and balances to ensure more helpful and less hurtful posts. more considerate and less inconsiderate. More patient and less impatient posts... All while being fair, helpful and not hurtful.
God Bless