The first thought was that this is in part what the votes are for in the first place. However, +- tends to also apply to opinion and agree/disagree, which is a different matter altogether, in which case this concept makes sense.
That said, there are consequences. One is anonymity. It would still necessitate said modvotes be anonymous and not brought into question on a personal level, lest we be too scared to act.
There are benefits to the idea as a voting system, but I'm not sure this is the way to go. For things that should be outright deleted, we have delete buttons. It's something to be careful about.
Social pressure I think can be expanded to be better utilized. Show a user's +- count lifetime, allow tagging of users as different categories (say if you're causing trouble, people might tag you as "Troll", whereas others might be tagged "Funny" or "Insightful". This could alternatively be applied to posts, so if you have a high percentage of troll posts, you become tagged as a troll.
But I said before that I'm not apart of decisions on this, I'll just give my thoughts.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
I like that idea. Show users life time + life time negs (under avatar). That might get more people to use it too.
To my original idea you could make it non-anon (more coding). So if I vote to delete your post it sends a PM to those with rights stating, "aspro has submitted the following post (link) for deletion for purposes of moderation, and is seeking a second vote". that way at least I know I would be going on the record in front of my peers before even considering such a thing. Just thinking of how to implement that makes me shudder a little.
As for the delete function now, I'd NEVER use it other than on my own posts, because we have not really talked about how to use it.
IT IS PROBABLY REALLY IMPORTANT to note that the inspiration for this thread came from Yoda's blog, not from anything I've seen around here lately. From what I can tell, we have not had any crazy bullshit posts lately. So I'm not on a witch hunt here.
EDIT:
I really prefer your idea though of having 4-5 tags we can click on any post funny, lame, troll, agree, disagree, because it would also solve the number of posts that don't get commented on. I see a lot of posts, and I don't really have anything to say other than "right on man" so I say nothing in response, but so far as the OP is concerned he's being ignored. Good ideas Yoda.
aspro said:Just thinking of how to implement that makes me shudder a little.
As you describe it is rather trivial.
Having something more effective in place, if only as a contingency, is a good thing. Nobody's willing to take individual action on anything.
Lifetime +- stats will happen, and will likely be apart of the coming big update. Where or how exactly is up in the air, as are the rest of said items.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileUnderstood. And good to know you have an idea as to how that would work/ understand where I was coming from.
Ravenprose said:Lifetime +- stats? Hmm, I had over 30 negatives on a single post once. This should be interesting.
Ohhh... Link please. I missed that one.
Foolz said:Why do you want to ban Iga? :/
I don't think anyone loves Iga more than me.
http://thevgpress.com/forumtopics/black-friday-score-_53_1.html#comment11068aspro said:Ohhh... Link please. I missed that one.
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!
I'm still uncomfortable with moderation, I've never deleted anyones posts but my own.
I guess things would have to get really bad to warrant it. I think, in some ways the excessive blow up arguments lets people see where they stand, like a balloon that inflates and de-flates.
Basically, the only problem we have is Dvader vs Agnates. If they were Rocky films they would be shooting Rocky 6 by now.
I say that they should agree never to quote each others posts, ever. Problem solved!
Yoda, there must be a more technical way you can do this, to restrict them quoting each other? 
Foolz said:Let's just make it so they can't see each other's posts. Permanently. Problem solved.
gamingeek said:That works for me! ^
I humbly request this option as well, but to prevent myself from reading posts from the both of you, unbearable macaques. I love you both.
SteelAttack said:Foolz said:Let's just make it so they can't see each other's posts. Permanently. Problem solved.
gamingeek said:That works for me! ^I humbly request this option as well, but to prevent myself from reading posts from the both of you, unbearable macaques. I love you both.
Both testicles.
gamingeek said:Both testicles.
OM NOM NOM NOM.
Okay so I'll just get into it: (set aside technical implementation for a second).
I call this my two-key solution.
If someone with rights (and I'll assume for this you know what I am talkign about), sees a post where someone is being a dickhead (bully), they have the ability to apply a moderation mark against it (an extra widget near the up / down voting symbols). If a second person with rights applies a second moderation mark against the same post the post is deleted and a PM is sent to the original poster notifying them that two senior members deleted the post on the basis of it being inapropriate. If someone gets more than 2 posts deleted they get a points deduction, 3 posts suspension, 4 posts banned.
All details negotiable.