@pharesim, I must admit I wasn't sure if removing my vote for your witness was the right thing to do, considering that I don't follow your work closely. However, this whiny post of yours has convinced me that I absolutely made the right decision.
What I find particularly funny is that you talk about "low effort posts," yet your own post is written in elementary school syntax and contains a typo (and that's after editing, apparently). I am afraid to even think about the competence level of your "seperate teams."
Oh seriously, a typo? Damn. You got me good. Let's switch to my native language and see how that goes for you.
I don't post to monetize, so you'll have to live with the amount of effort I put.
I also didn't reply to get your witness vote back, I don't do these games.
I was only here to explain a few things to you which you clearly didn't know yet.
This isn't a popularity contest for me. I don't care what you vote for, and I use my votes as I want.
It's actually funny that you come to this realization now. Curangel is nearly 4 years old, and has been operating this way since its inception. I have been a proponent of using downvotes more since forever, and especially since they do not cost voting power. If that's a concern to you and something that influences your decision to vote on a witness, you should've never voted for me in the first place.
Well, downvotes certainly have its use against plagiarism, spam, threats etc. However, we apparently disagree about the use of continuous systemic unexplained uncommented downvotes because the posts are perceived as "not high quality" (whatever that means, it's obviously wildly subjective, making it pretty much pointless to argue about).