Question: [This question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/243404/pay-real-money-to-set-bounties-another-method-not-replacing-rep-method) was rapidly down-voted without any response of material to help the user understand why the question was so poorly asked that it justified such rapid and massive down-voting. I have seen this happen before, but didn't bother tracking those questions, so for now I have only the one example to provide. My opinion is that down-voting in most of such cases is more for -1 disagree than for any genuine issues with the question.

I just want to suggest that if a question has no answers and some agreed upon negative score (-5? -10?), then no further down-votes should be allowed until an answer is provided. I cannot see any useful purpose to massively down-voting a question without providing a single answer.

Please understand this is not intended to be a discussion on the topic of that question.

Answer: 
I disagree with this proposal. I have nothing constructive to add, but I am just posting an answer because I am required to in order to down-vote, since there are already too many down-votes on the proposal.

---

The above is essentially the type of answer that this proposal would attract to questions. Not to mention all the extra NAA flags that would go along with it. This is not particularly useful, I believe.
Votes (up or down) need to be anonymous and without cap or any action required other than the vote itself. 

This is because we want, "need", people to vote, and cannot risk losing votes from users who wont be *forced* to make answer (or comment). Stopping people voting means you risk getting a less accurate representation of the general user opinion. 

You also then only receive votes from user willing to answer (or comment), and by tunnelling votes to a certain "type" of person there is a danger of only getting a "certain type" of mindset/opinion each time. 

Open community works as you get opinions from all kinds of people/thoughts/ideas, and while comments and answers are more useful in terms of raw opinion, simply having *votes* from different users is paramount to ensuring a varied mindset and opinion.  

Even if they all agree, and even if it's 30 downvotes. the "varied" user mindset agrees this question (or answer) is terrible, poor, not a good suggestion, etc. 

If nothing else, they are just as *entitled* to vote as anyone who is happy to or wants to comment/answer, forced or not. 

> 
> How about forcing answers when there is rapid down-voting without any answers? 
> 
> 
> 

Sincerely, I get your logic, I do, and it's admirable your intentions are to improve the site by trying to get some answers out of people rather than a mass downvote attack (etc). 

However, *forcing answers* for a downvote once a certain downvote threshold is met is not really realistic or useful at all. 

Sorry, it's simply a bonkers idea.  

Mad as a bag of frogs! 

* You'll just (mostly) get poor answers, so your intentions to bring
about *improvement* is completely lost
* You will lose votes, not good as mentioned above
* Rapid downvoting is perfectly fine as it simply signifies a poor
question, or poor proposal. This is a big part of the site, and why
it works well within a huge community

You are also "essentially" suggesting a cap which potentially (and likely will) **limit**: 

1. How *bad* a question can be (determined by X max downvotes)
2. How many users can disagree with the idea/opinion/feature request
3. Allowing the first X users to the question to be able to downvote
freely, and forcing the remaining ones to answer (or comment) is not
fair, at all

These would be severely detrimental to the main premise of Stack, that good content is voted up, and bad is voted down out of sight.