I broke it -- sorry about that. I made a change to the upvote/downvote system, and apparently made a typo.

Just tried to upthumb your post...wouldn't work.  Evidently, some upthumbs work and others don't.

Thanks for the reports. I realized I was restricting upvotes, which I didn't mean to. I only want to stem the ability of "newbies" to attack long-standing members of CathInfo.

Let's put it this way: those who have stuck with CathInfo for years, made thousands of posts, should NOT be at a disadvantage compared to new users! But a month ago, if Joe Newbie signed up for a new account (and made the requisite # of posts to be able to start up/downvoting), Joe Newbie could become 13% of ANY user's downvotes -- including members with +4000 upvotes and -1000 downvotes. 13% of 1000 is 130! That's not fair to the long-standing member. So I had to do something about it.

NOW: instead of giving everyone a 13% cap on downvotes, it varies by person. Long-standing members will get the full 13% of a target's downvotes. But if your CURRENT UPVOTE COUNT is less than your victim's downvote count, you are limited to
13% of YOUR UPVOTE COUNT + (1/4 of the difference between your upvote count and his downvote count)

NOTE: It only goes one direction. If you have 6,000 upvotes, you don't get 13% of that figure. The system only checks to see if your Upvote count is LESS THAN your intended target's downvote count. If so, then it runs the calculation. You end up being able to give less downvotes, as you hit the 13% wall a bit sooner.

I might tweak that formula as time goes on. I might increase that 13% figure, now that it's not given out to anyone and everyone. Also, since people aren't very good about using the upvote/downvote feature (i.e., it doesn't have high participation UNFORTUNATELY), I might have to use POST COUNT instead of UPVOTE COUNT. Both would give me roughly what I'm looking for: an investment in the forum, something that says you deserve to vote that many times against an established member's reputation.

I only want to stem the ability of "newbies" to attack long-standing members of CathInfo.

Thanks for the reports. I realized I was restricting upvotes, which I didn't mean to. I only want to stem the ability of "newbies" to attack long-standing members of CathInfo.

Let's put it this way: those who have stuck with CathInfo for years, made thousands of posts, should NOT be at a disadvantage compared to new users! But a month ago, if Joe Newbie signed up for a new account (and made the requisite # of posts to be able to start up/downvoting), Joe Newbie could become 13% of ANY user's downvotes -- including members with +4000 upvotes and -1000 downvotes. 13% of 1000 is 130! That's not fair to the long-standing member. So I had to do something about it.

NOW: instead of giving everyone a 13% cap on downvotes, it varies by person. Long-standing members will get the full 13% of a target's downvotes. But if your CURRENT UPVOTE COUNT is less than your victim's downvote count, you are limited to
13% of YOUR UPVOTE COUNT + (1/4 of the difference between your upvote count and his downvote count)

NOTE: It only goes one direction. If you have 6,000 upvotes, you don't get 13% of that figure. The system only checks to see if your Upvote count is LESS THAN your intended target's downvote count. If so, then it runs the calculation. You end up being able to give less downvotes, as you hit the 13% wall a bit sooner.

I might tweak that formula as time goes on. I might increase that 13% figure, now that it's not given out to anyone and everyone. Also, since people aren't very good about using the upvote/downvote feature (i.e., it doesn't have high participation UNFORTUNATELY), I might have to use POST COUNT instead of UPVOTE COUNT. Both would give me roughly what I'm looking for: an investment in the forum, something that says you deserve to vote that many times against an established member's reputation.

Heh.  I think Joe Newbie doesn't like your new algorithm. 

If I'm understanding the new algorithm, I think a weakness might be that the number of posts may not mean "long standing member" in all cases.