Honestly, I don't have much faith in this system.
Personally, I very rarely click on the minus button, because it's much easier
for me, personally, to just click away. I only tend to do it when I'm
personally involved. Now, I'm not going to claim to speak for the entire
community, but given the number of negative votes on chaosesqueteam's
comments I've seen, I'd say this is a fairly common approach. There might be
one or two people who make a point of clicking the minus button on every bad
post they see, but that's just not enough. Plus, think of the delay; a bad
post can stay up for hours, sometimes even a whole day, depending on what
everyone's doing.
And as for hiding posts sooner when the user has a lot of negative votes?
What's stopping that user from just making another account?
Suppose, rather than focusing our efforts on correcting bad posters, we just
filter all posts until the poster has earned our trust somehow. Perhaps there
could be an approval button, only usable by members who have earned our
trust, and someone who gets, say, 10 points would be said to earn our trust.
As a backup, moderators could have the power to instantly mark a user as
trusted.
Untrusted users would still be able to post; they'd just have to wait for a
moderator to approve their posts. If we had enough moderators, this would
typically just be a delay of a few hours, I think. Legitimate users would get
their posts shown soon enough, and if they keep posting, they would become
trusted soon enough.
Posters like vPro, on the other hand, would find themselves in a constant
battle to re-earn trust after losing it over and over again, each time having
to take care not to reveal that they are the same person. It would be doable,
but not even remotely worth it.
