When a user (on a regular or a Meta site) gets a particularly high number of downvotes, it seems an automatic filter kicks in which bans them from asking any more questions, with the message:

Sorry, we are no longer accepting questions from this account. See [here] to learn more.

This makes sense for regular sites, as many downvotes would generally indicate particularly bad questions, potentially 'poisoning' the site and reducing its quality. However, for Meta sites, the downvote is used to indicate mere disagreement with a question asked. Surely it doesn't make sense to ban a user because they asked several (appropriate) questions, or made several (appropriate) proposals, with which many people disagreed? Shouldn't this auto-filter be disabled for Meta sites?

2 Answers 2


Ah, good point -- I never meant for this to be enabled on linked (child) metas. Disabling that now.

(However, I don't think this was actually enabled here -- were you seeing it on English?)

  • It was (and is) enabled on the main Meta; is there a different policy there to here?
    – Jez
    Commented Jun 12, 2011 at 7:40
  • @jez yes, it is enabled intentionally on Meta Stack Exchange Commented Jun 12, 2011 at 8:19
  • 1
    Why is the policy different?
    – Jez
    Commented Jun 12, 2011 at 8:45
  • 1
    @jez for historical reasons. If you are curious, hours of reading awaits you at Meta Stack Exchange Commented Jun 12, 2011 at 8:53
  • 1
    Doesn't it make sense to change that policy? Someone can't file bug reports if they made a few unpopular suggestions...
    – Jez
    Commented Jun 12, 2011 at 9:23

On a similar question on meta.SO, asked on October, Jeff Atwood replied saying:

Probably it will be enabled, with a relaxed threshold.

I agree that down-voting on a meta site has a different meaning than in the main site, but I still think that if a user keeps getting down-votes on questions, then that user is probably making poor suggestions.

  • 2
    As far as I can tell, Meta downvotes get used a lot against users that others "don't like", or even "for the lulz". As long as they're being abused in this way, I don't think it makes sense to have the filter at all. In fact, why does one need downvotes? If it's an unpopular question, it can just be left at zero; if it's a dupe or there's something fundamentally wrong with it, people can vote to close. Downvotes seem redundant to me.
    – Jez
    Commented Jun 12, 2011 at 7:44
  • @Jez I don't think there is a difference between down-voting a question on the main or the meta site, now that it changed who is influenced by the down-vote. If it would be possible to down-vote a bad proposal, then you should up-vote all the proposals that are not bad. The actual voting system allow three states; the questions with no votes are in the middle: they are not so good, but they are not bad too.
    – avpaderno
    Commented Jun 12, 2011 at 13:37
  • 2
    @jez that's a really broad accusation to make, and having been on meta.so for hundreds of days in a row -- I can't say I agree. I have seen trolls get systematically voted down, and I have seen "not this topic for the hundredth time again" posts get voted down, but I can't recall the behavior you are describing. Can you provide citations or evidence to support your position? Commented Jun 12, 2011 at 13:54
  • meta.stackexchange.com/questions/93910/… "You realize that, just by posting this question, you will get a lot of downvotes from people who are trying to be ironic/funny."
    – Jez
    Commented Jun 12, 2011 at 14:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .