Allow users to reduce the offensive count
Users are marking questions offensive that are from non-native speakers or noobish. If we can't ban these abusers of the offensive link, can we at least vote "not offensive" and reduce the count by 1? I see this crap all the time and it pisses me off. You could say I'm offended.
The offensive feature is designed primarily for fast response to spam or hate speech. Allowing users to fight against this would open the system to spammers using sock puppets to keep their items active, for example. Declining because the votes already decay after two days and because there is a separate UV item to make offensive votes cost rep (returned when it is deleted). You put all that together and it’s a much better system.
@RichB: thanks for the context. In that case, i'd have to say that the current fall-off behavior is *definitely* working - none of the linked questions was deleted, all but the offensive one are now offensive-vote-free, God is in His heaven, etc...
IMHO, folks need to be less sensitive about seeing a handful of offensive votes on their posts. They don't hurt anything in small numbers...
@Shog9: The 'big o' one that cletus links to had the OP inserting very offensive comments into the question through edits. It is not at all surprising it was marked offensive.
@cletus: of the links you posted, offensive votes remain on only the "big o" one (which was closed for other reasons). The falloff system appears to be working...
@Eddie: Spam is 100% offensive.
Although I agree with @cletus that offensive votes (and close votes) should cost rep, I think it also might be a good idea to allow somebody to rescind an offensive or close vote, if the post is edited or the opinion of the voter changes.
Then the name should be changed. And voting something abuse because the person asking the question has a tentative grasp of the english language is complete bullshit. If I come on and ask "How is schema formed? How do xml get validated?" that's not spam, its not abuse, and its not offensive.
I'm in favor of reducing the offensive count, but Cletus' rep points is also good.
I can't find it, but I saw one post with multiple offensive votes (2 or 3) which made no sense. I commented to ask why and someone said that "offensive" is also for SPAM. OK, I get that, but the question didn't appear to me to be SPAM. It got closed, but was certainly not offensive and didn't look like any SPAM I've received. Looked like a real question.
and a bit more borderline:
More stupid than offensive
You're assuming that those voting aren't making an honest mistake. Perhaps they're using bad translation software, and during the conversion from txtspk or Ackbarkistanese to their native tongue the question takes on an abusive tone?
I don't think there should be a "not-offensive" voting option. While something might not be offensive to me, it still can be offensive to somebody else.
I agree with cletus that offensive votes should cost rep.
This problem is easy to solve: make offensive votes cost rep (that you get back if it hits 5 offensive votes).
Offensive votes are used as free downvotes (in that they vote down but dont' cost rep).
Why this hasn't been addressed is completely beyond me.
Did you mentioned that in the definition of SO "offensive" == "spam" == "abuse"?
But you are right that there should be an ability to reduce the offensive count. *vote*