Well if somebody dislikes a post and reports it and there's nothing wrong with it, then ignore it. This all seems just like an excuse to make your life as a moderator easier.
I can understand that assumption, but it's actually the opposite. It is much easier to ignore reports. In fact, I don't think it gets any easier than that. Surely putting in the time to trial something in hopes of achieving betterment does not look like the 'easy way out'?
To put it as simply as I can.... When I see a report, I see it as somebody is unhappy. If I can do something that results in less unhappy people, I wanna try.
While there is a counter for all of the concerns stated so far, they are of course valid, even if 100% are based on hypotheticals and fabricated scenarios. Which is exactly why this was only ever meant as a trial, temporary inclusion, to allow the gathering of data and to not need to rely on hypotheticals. And if it did serve as a honeypot for trolls, i could certainly see how that could be used for good.
Hopefully it is only when discussions get a little too argumentative and maybe off-topic. A bunch of dislikes might be better than more argumentative posts. And maybe a little "hey that comment was uncalled for"?
This was the core reason behind it. I mean really... who's going to add big red thumbs down with their name attached to it on a member's composition? Sounds like a good way to be shown the door.
Anyway, based on the response here so far, and word from the big man himself, i'm happy to turn it off.
