Aningan: I didn't want to post in another rep topic but this grabbed my attention. I suppose it depends on how you define "negative" but if you mean "low rated" then that statement seems false.
I did not do any tests, so correct me if I am wrong, but based on your own tests, doesn't the rep system work the other way around also?
It needs 5 accounts to get a post high rated (+1 rep), 6 to do it "stealthy".
It takes 9-10
knowing about the abuse and coordinating to fix the damage.
The rating system seems to have a loop-hole which permits abuse, but it's not biased towards either positive or negative outcomes.
My testing revealed that if your post gets low-rated, you
always lose rep (until the loss cap), but high-rating only
sometimes gains you rep.
It gets worse.
Rep: 3193
Post downrated to low-rated.
Rep: 3192
Post uprated (removes low-rating).
Rep: 3192.
Post downrated (became low-rating again).
Rep: 3191
... may I amend my previous statement to "extremely biased towards reducing rep"?
EDIT: In case anyone doesn't get the above, any time your post changes to "low-rated", you lose a rep point. So you could remove 5 rep from someone using one post by "toggling" it between neutral and low-rated.