I tend to downvote people who don't seem to be acting effectively toward their perceived objectives.
Really? Why?
Suppose I have the goal of convincing LW to stop thinking about FAI. So I write a brilliant article on the dangers of uFAI. The utter disconnect between the goal and the article means you downvote?
That's a different position that downvoting because you don't approve the political move.
In light of recent (and potential) events, I wanted to start a discussion here about a certain method of handling conflicts on this site's discussion threads, and hopefully form a consensus on when to use the measure described in the title. Even if the discussion has no impact on site policy ("executive veto"), I hope administrators will at least clarify when such a measure will be used, and for what reason.
I also don't want to taint or "anchor" the discussion by offering hypothetical situations or arguments for one position or another. Rather, I simply want to ask: Under what conditions should a specific poster, "Alice" be prohibited from replying directly to the arguments in a post/comment made by another poster, "Bob"? (Note: this is referring specifically to replies to ideas and arguments Bob has advanced, not general comments about Bob the person, which should probably go under much closer scrutiny because of the risk of incivility.)
Please offer your ideas and thoughts here on when this measure should be used.