Oh no the horror. This would discourage people from voting, thus I am not in favour of it. I'm on the fence about removing negative votes entirely. I have used them in the past, I think only twice and only for a member whose actions had a significant negative impact on my enjoyment of 48G activities that year. The requirement that your first negative vote be -5 definitely does stop me from using them more often, but at the same time I think it's absurd and forces people to give a larger malus than they might have otherwise. It shouldn't be difficult for the script to understand something like: Code: 01. Matsui Jurina (-5) 05. Yahagi Moeka (-1) And let that still count, allowing people to assign their negatives as they see fit. To a degree, the same goes for leaving positive vote slots blank (especially if we expand the number of voting slots). The latter might encourage more people to vote, without investing the time to come up with an entire 20 (or 25! or 30!!!) names. The former... will probably increase the number of minor negative votes, but if we're going to keep negative votes as a thing I'd prefer it that way. I'd probably have given Yahagi Moeka a -1 for last year I don't agree that negatives are necessary to "reflect the feelings of the forum", but at the same time, if that is the reason for allowing them, surely allowing people more freedom in how they assign them would be even more accurate. Bit of a strawman don't you think? Some people are posting negative votes, yes. Most of them either don't justify them or the votes are 80% NGT members. I haven't seen any negative votes for the "high value targets" revealed so far.