Just reopening this discussion as it would seem a small group of vested interests (sounds better than cowards), have been up to their usual nefarious nonsense and created fake accounts to vote against random images of mine. One of them was a picture of the dachshunds and others were benign pictures of myself.
One of the fakes even had an unsuccesful try with a ridiculous complaint to the evaluation panel which speaks for itself.
Here is the latest list of silliness for your amusement.


0 points - lauren90 voted against your pic 3510sdiye9qw - Mar 31, 00:20
0 points - OU812 voted against your pic ytmyq015mwde - Mar 30, 19:06
0 points - OU812 voted against your pic ttrptcxuvc0x - Mar 30, 19:05
0 points - OU812 voted against your pic rgu56bohblx1 - Mar 30, 19:03
0 points - OU812 voted against your pic rm8ncpapkn3f - Mar 30, 19:02
0 points - OU812 voted against your pic i1a8g81jjz2e - Mar 30, 19:02
0 points - OU812 voted against your pic 95hhlvlrci3w - Mar 30, 19:01
0 points - OU812 voted against your pic yil1zrylzcxj - Mar 30, 19:01
0 points - OU812 voted against your pic zklit25pklx9 - Mar 30, 19:00
0 points - OU812 voted against your pic idng0lrg17ge - Mar 30, 18:59

Admin, why not restrict the amount of negative votes a member can cast on the same image. There are restrictions on "flooding", isn't a negative voting tirade one in the same, or potentially even a worse offense?

I realize negative voting generates revenue via purchasing points, but all the negativity floating in it's wake is potentially far more damaging to the livelihood of this site.

Just my opinion.