If an answer is downvoted, the person who wrote it gets only -2 rep, while an upvote gives +10 rep, which means that in order to negate the upvotes and encorage the poster to delete/edit their answer we need 5 downvotes for every upvotes, this creates a situation where answers that get alot of downvotes are still "profitable" for their posters, here are some examples:
Is Barack Obama a natural born US citizen? an answer with +4 and -21, the most downvoted answer in the site, and the answer with the lowest score on the site, gives its writer only -2 rep.
Do Israeli soldiers kill Palestinian kids? an anwer with +5 and -15, the second most downvoted answer in the site gives the writer +20 rep
Is CO₂ the cause for Global Warming? answer with +2 -12, gives the writer only -4 rep
Is there anything inexplicable about how the WTC Twin Towers collapsed? an nswer with +3 and -12 gives the write +6 rep
Was McCarthy directly involved with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)? an answer with +3 and -10 gives the write +20 rep.
This is a ridiculous situation in my view, beyond the fact that answers which are clearly shown by the community they are no good give their writers rep, which suppose to indicate trust.
After reading Should the weight of downvotes be increased? I tend to agree with the reasons for not increasing the penalty for all downvotes, but I still think that the examples I've brought and some others are ridiculous. So I have two propositions for this:
increase the penalty differential, where from a certain amount of downvotes each downvotes reduces more rep, this addresses both issues raised by Jeff.
a. It'll not change the cost for a downvote, so no "nerfing" the tool.
b. This way it won't be used to bludgeon a user, unless a lot of people agree that an answer should be bludgeoned, and will not support indevidual retaliation against people.
Since we are (still) a fairly small site, we have only 1 user that is not a mod and can nominate answers for deletion, so we can't really trust on the community to do its own, because in this matter there is no community yet. What I suggest is that answer that get enough downvotes would be offered for closure to the community as a question in meta, and if enough people support it (ether by answers, or by votes) then the modes will delete them with their godly powers.
I myself have answers with few downvotes, so If such a measure is taken I might loose some rep. (Which I'm OK with).
The new proposed methods will probably not affect me, but even if they do, I probably deserve it.