Removing the reputation barrier to voting for all users is a change we feel will lead to more users being able to indicate post quality and usefulness, but we recognize that it will require a lot of care to ensure that we are educating voters about when to vote and encouraging them to follow acceptable voting practices while also preventing or removing votes that were cast inappropriately.

I can't say that SE has a good track record in educating users. I am not saying it is not possible, but so far most of the users in the network are poorly educated when it comes to how sites function, what is their purpose, which questions are on topic and which not. Most of the time users cannot even ask the question on the right site, so I am pretty skeptical that educating will work.

But main problem is not education, nor how you will do that. You are approaching this purely from the perspective of "good" users and problems which can arise when genuine users will use the sites where there is no reputation limit to voting.

Main problem are bad actors and the damage they could do to the sites, because there will be bad actors. And in quantities you will not be able to cater for.

Besides possible abuse with upvotes, there is also possible abuse with downvoting. I am less concerned with ability to downvote as this could be beneficial for question moderation on smaller sites, where you may have a number of otherwise experienced users that just don't have appropriate reputation on some sites in the network.

I am more concerned about removing reputation cost for downvoting answers which opens doors for revenge downvoting on answers. Now, this is not such an issue with answers that have plenty of upvotes, but on smaller sites where there are only handful of votes on answers this could be a real problem for answers that are of high quality but were being picked as a target. And you will not be bale to catch and reverse all such downvotes.

At the end this might make people more reluctant to participate in moderation activities and this is what is your end goal.

Removing the reputation barrier to voting for all users is a change we feel will lead to more users being able to indicate post quality and usefulness, but we recognize that it will require a lot of care to ensure that we are educating voters about when to vote and encouraging them to follow acceptable voting practices while also preventing or removing votes that were cast inappropriately.

I can't say that SE has a good track record in educating users. I am not saying it is not possible, but so far most of the users in the network are poorly educated when it comes to how sites function, what is their purpose, which questions are on topic and which not. Most of the time users cannot even ask the question on the right site, so I am pretty skeptical that educating will work.

But main problem is not education, nor how you will do that. You are approaching this purely from the perspective of "good" users and problems which can arise when genuine users will use the sites where there is no reputation limit to voting.

Main problem are bad actors and the damage they could do to the sites, because there will be bad actors. And in quantities you will not be able to cater for.

Besides possible abuse with upvotes, there is also possible abuse with downvoting. I am less concerned with ability to downvote as this could be beneficial for question moderation on smaller sites, where you may have a number of otherwise experienced users that just don't have appropriate reputation on some sites in the network.

I am more concerned about removing reputation cost for downvoting answers which opens doors for revenge downvoting on answers. Now, this is not such an issue with answers that have plenty of upvotes, but on smaller sites where there are only handful of votes on answers this could be a real problem for answers that are of high quality but were being picked as a target. And you will not be able to catch and reverse all such downvotes.

At the end this might make people more reluctant to participate in moderation activities and this is what is your end goal.

Removing the reputation barrier to voting for all users is a change we feel will lead to more users being able to indicate post quality and usefulness, but we recognize that it will require a lot of care to ensure that we are educating voters about when to vote and encouraging them to follow acceptable voting practices while also preventing or removing votes that were cast inappropriately.

I can't say that SE has a good track record in educating users. I am not saying it is not possible, but so far most of the users in the network are poorly educated when it comes to how sites function, what is their purpose, which questions are on topic and which not. Most of the time users cannot even ask the question on the right site, so I am pretty skeptical that educating will work.

But even if educating is not an issue, you need to approach the issue from the bad actors perspective, because there will be bad actors. And in quantities you will not be able to cater for.

Besides possible abuse with upvotes, there is also possible abuse with downvoting. I am less concerned with ability to downvote as this could be beneficial for question moderation on smaller sites, where you may have a number of otherwise experienced users that just don't have appropriate reputation on some sites in the network.

I am more concerned about removing reputation cost for downvoting answers which opens doors for revenge downvoting on answers. Now, this is not such an issue with answers that have plenty of upvotes, but on smaller sites where there are only handful of votes on answers this could be a real problem for answers that are of high quality but were being picked as a target. And you will not be bale to catch and reverse all such downvotes.

At the end this might make people more reluctant to participate in moderation activities and this is what is your end goal.

Removing the reputation barrier to voting for all users is a change we feel will lead to more users being able to indicate post quality and usefulness, but we recognize that it will require a lot of care to ensure that we are educating voters about when to vote and encouraging them to follow acceptable voting practices while also preventing or removing votes that were cast inappropriately.

I can't say that SE has a good track record in educating users. I am not saying it is not possible, but so far most of the users in the network are poorly educated when it comes to how sites function, what is their purpose, which questions are on topic and which not. Most of the time users cannot even ask the question on the right site, so I am pretty skeptical that educating will work.

But main problem is not education, nor how you will do that. You are approaching this purely from the perspective of "good" users and problems which can arise when genuine users will use the sites where there is no reputation limit to voting.

Main problem are bad actors and the damage they could do to the sites, because there will be bad actors. And in quantities you will not be able to cater for.

Besides possible abuse with upvotes, there is also possible abuse with downvoting. I am less concerned with ability to downvote as this could be beneficial for question moderation on smaller sites, where you may have a number of otherwise experienced users that just don't have appropriate reputation on some sites in the network.

I am more concerned about removing reputation cost for downvoting answers which opens doors for revenge downvoting on answers. Now, this is not such an issue with answers that have plenty of upvotes, but on smaller sites where there are only handful of votes on answers this could be a real problem for answers that are of high quality but were being picked as a target. And you will not be bale to catch and reverse all such downvotes.

At the end this might make people more reluctant to participate in moderation activities and this is what is your end goal.