Voting is not a violation of the CoC.

We don't vote on users; we vote on content. If a new user posts good content, then that content will not attract downvotes. If an experienced user posts bad content, it will attract downvotes. That is exactly as it should be. New users are not a protected class.

That'd be great, and things like that are being worked on. But that is orthogonal to the CoC issue.

You don't understand what, exactly? That features that help guide new users to ask question better are in development? That such features don't have anything to do with the CoC?

Systems are systems; they cannot follow a "code of conduct". CoCs are for people.

No more than it would for a 1 million rep users.

We don't downvote users!

This is not a difficult concept to understand.

Posts get downvotes; users do not.

There is no "new contributor CoC".

There is only one CoC, which everyone must follow. It applies equally to everyone.

"What does is say to the user when that happens they go poof never to come back." ... I don't care. Our site grades content. If a user posts poor content, then their content will be graded poorly. Whether they are new or old.

If posting poor content, and having their content graded accordingly, causes a new user to never return, that is not something I can help.

More importantly, it is not something I should help.

This site is about creating good content.

"under the profile it says new contributor please be kind or something" So what? That has nothing specifically to do with the CoC. It is merely a reminder to follow the rules; it is not establishing a separate set of rules for new users.

"A good question written poorly" is an contradiction; the writing of a question is part of its quality.

Again, the writing of a question is part of its quality.

I would rather that SE spend their limited time on something more useful than a grammar checker, but I have nothing against the idea. But that has nothing to do with the CoC itself.

We do not downvote users!

I will repeat that every time you claim that a user gets downvoted.

A downvoted question implies that the question is poor. It has no bearing on the user itself.

It's tough to communicate that concept through since people believe votes are a referendum on themselves as a person, but that really isn't the case.

The CoC codifies the site's general policy of "Be nice" - in the context of no offensive behavior or attacking of specific groups or demographics. Moderation of content is orthogonal to the goals of the CoC, and voting is a form of moderation, since that impacts what a user can do on the site.

It kinda starts with you - don't take votes personally.

Also @NicolBolas sorry about just sneaking in; I was content to be a fly on the wall for a bit...

@Muze: "if you down play some ones beat up truck they get mad this is similar" ... so? If I give a product a bad review, the maker of that product probably won't like it. But their opinion is irrelevant. If it's a crappy product, then that should be stated, regardless of what they think about it.

@Muze: "Just today the some of my own votes was reversed" What does that have to do with anything discussed here? If your votes were reversed, that would be due to you doing serial voting. Which is not allowed.

There's no such thing as "serial closing".

If 5 people agree that the content violates our standards, then it probably does.

You want to know why people downvote without comment? Just look around.

I downvoted your answer here, but I also commented.

And what happened? We got into a discussion. A long one.

During that time, I'm not looking for questions to answer.

I'm not providing information to others.

In short, I'm not doing anything genuinely productive towards the goals of the site.

I'm merely arguing with one user.

Things like this happen often when you comment on posts.

Few are the people who just accept correction. They almost always argue against it.

Thus wasting the user's time defending it.

@Muze - in all honesty when someone tries to strike up a conversation about why they were downvoted, it's actually highly counterproductive to the actual reason as to why the post was downvoted at all. More times than not, an OP in that context is looking for someone to blame/yell at in an effort to try and get the vote overturned.

For the sake of those who actually moderate, it's better to not comment since that drains a ton of energy from both parties.

@Muze I don't see how it's "unfair" people are using their ability to downvote... That's a privilege that people are choosing to use. It's how curation is designed on SE. If users are experiencing issues with downvotes and the associated suspensions, perhaps those users need to work on their content, instead of blaming the curators. SE is community driven; if the community response is generally negative, then the user needs to reevaluate their use of that community.

"I am trying to get you to understand it from another perspective not argue" Then understand it from my perspective. I understand their perspective; I simply do not care about it.

It's fair, though.

Content moderation and curation doesn't really need to take into account the creator's feelings. If it's good, it gets treated well. If it's bad, it's often subject for removal.

Arguing against those of us who do the curation dodges the main point - the content was poor.

@Muze: Question bans require a very great deal of effort to get. You have to ask multiple questions that attract lots of negative attention. What makes them "premature" to you?

The purpose of a question ban is to identify users who have repeatedly failed to understand how our site works, and therefore are likely to continue to fail at asking useful, productive questions. So it's probably better for everyone that they're not asking questions.

Time is a finite resource. Time spent helping one person ask a question is time not spent answering a question asked by someone who is following our rules.

Why is helping a person who isn't following our rules more important than helping a person who is?