the301stspartanI see your point now, but in an ideal setting I would think that you +frag people you agree with, -frag shitposts and don't vote on contributing posts even if you disagree with themThat seems overly complicataed and not intuitive. +frags and -frags should be analogous in usage.
eg.
guy
My stance on this is x and here is why
3 people agree
1 person doesn't
+3
other guy
my stance on this is contrary to guy and here is why
3 people disagree
1 person agrees
+1
shitposter
xD I am not contributing to the discussion
4 people agree this is a shitpost
-4
As you see, in a perfect setting by not voting on something you disagree with, you are successfully showing disapproval towards it.
True, which is why I stated its observed as best case scenario. Unfortunately, while many people find votes silly (me included) there are some who hold unpopular opinions and when they see their opinion get downfragged like shitposters normally do, they fear they will also get downfragged and treated the same as a shitposter (given that most frequent shitposters carry that reputation with them). This creates an environment where some unpopular opinions are suppressed which is unhealthy for forums and political discussions.
fatswimdudethis isnt reddit though where -votes can sort controversial but well-written comments to the bottom. -frags are completely functionless
if someone is basing their view of your opinions off of frag count they probably shouldnt be participating in intelligent discussions in the first place
just -frag stuff if u dont like it and +frag it if u do its not supposed to be a fully thought-out decision
This is the problem. When people judge posts by frag count and let it sway their decision to contribute to a discussion.