Return to Answer

You're not the only one thinking this behaviour should be changed, my own feature request on Meta.SO to change this is the second-most upvoted unresolved feature request at the moment with a score of over 200.

As far as I understand from some comments from SE developers, changing this would be pretty complicated technically. Just transferring the votes to the community user would not work as no user can vote multiple times for the same post.

For reference, here is the text of my argument on Meta to change this behaviour:

Currently, when a moderator deletes a user all of the user's votes are removed along with the user himself. I was pretty surprised at this behaviour when I first heard about it, and I don't think it is a good idea to throw away all of the votes just because the user is deleted.

Votes are locked after a short while and you can't change your vote unless the post is edited. This is a precedent that shows that users don't have complete control over their old votes, their ability to change or remove their votes is restricted for the benefit of the whole site. I don't understand why users that get deleted are suddenly exempt from this restriction.

The drawback of removing the votes is that we throw away valuable information. Voting plays an important role on SE sites, and every time an active user is deleted we throw away some of that information.

I also don't see why rage-quitting users get to remove one kind of contribution (votes) while we stop them if they try to remove their other contributions to the site (posts). We stop users from deleting all their posts because they still provide value to the site, I don't see why we shoud treat votes any different. They might have less value than posts, but they are useful to the site as a whole.

I'm ignoring any vote invalidation in connection with vote fraud or sock puppeting for the purposes of this post. Those votes should certainly be invalidated, but that doesn't usually happen by deleting users.

The recent change to counting reputation from deleted questions if they are old enough and have at least three upvotes moves the whole reputation system further into a direction where reputation can't be taken away after some time. The reasoning for this change was that even though certain questions are off-topic now, they used to be on-topic and therefore the reputation earned had some meaning then. This provides further precedent that reputation shouldn't be removed retroactively on a large scale.

You're not the only one thinking this behaviour should be changed, my own feature request on Meta.SO to change this is the second-most upvoted unresolved feature request at the moment with a score of over 200.

As far as I understand from some comments from SE developers, changing this would be pretty complicated technically. Just transferring the votes to the community user would not work as no user can vote multiple times for the same post.

For reference, here is the text of my argument on Meta to change this behaviour:

Currently, when a moderator deletes a user all of the user's votes are removed along with the user himself. I was pretty surprised at this behaviour when I first heard about it, and I don't think it is a good idea to throw away all of the votes just because the user is deleted.

Votes are locked after a short while and you can't change your vote unless the post is edited. This is a precedent that shows that users don't have complete control over their old votes, their ability to change or remove their votes is restricted for the benefit of the whole site. I don't understand why users that get deleted are suddenly exempt from this restriction.

The drawback of removing the votes is that we throw away valuable information. Voting plays an important role on SE sites, and every time an active user is deleted we throw away some of that information.

I also don't see why rage-quitting users get to remove one kind of contribution (votes) while we stop them if they try to remove their other contributions to the site (posts). We stop users from deleting all their posts because they still provide value to the site, I don't see why we shoud treat votes any different. They might have less value than posts, but they are useful to the site as a whole.

I'm ignoring any vote invalidation in connection with vote fraud or sock puppeting for the purposes of this post. Those votes should certainly be invalidated, but that doesn't usually happen by deleting users.

The recent change to counting reputation from deleted questions if they are old enough and have at least three upvotes moves the whole reputation system further into a direction where reputation can't be taken away after some time. The reasoning for this change was that even though certain questions are off-topic now, they used to be on-topic and therefore the reputation earned had some meaning then. This provides further precedent that reputation shouldn't be removed retroactively on a large scale.

You're not the only one thinking this behaviour should be changed, my own feature request on Meta.SO to change this is the second-most upvoted unresolved feature request at the moment with a score of over 200.  

As far as I understand from some comments from SE developers, changing this would be pretty complicated technically. Just transferring the votes to the community user would not work as no user can vote multiple times for the same post.

For reference, here is the text of my argument on Meta to change this behaviour:

 

Currently, when a moderator deletes a user all of the user's votes  are removed along with the user himself. I was pretty surprised at  this behaviour when I first heard about it, and I don't think it is a  good idea to throw away all of the votes just because the user is  deleted.

 

Votes are locked after a short while and you can't change your vote  unless the post is edited. This is a precedent that shows that users  don't have complete control over their old votes, their ability to  change or remove their votes is restricted for the benefit of the  whole site. I don't understand why users that get deleted are suddenly  exempt from this restriction.  

 

The drawback of removing the votes is that we throw away valuable  information. Voting plays an important role on SE sites, and every  time an active user is deleted we throw away some of that information.

 

I also don't see why rage-quitting users get to remove one kind of  contribution (votes) while we stop them if they try to remove their  other contributions to the site (posts). We stop users from deleting  all their posts because they still provide value to the site, I don't  see why we shoud treat votes any different. They might have less value  than posts, but they are useful to the site as a whole.

 

I'm ignoring any vote invalidation in connection with vote fraud or  sock puppeting for the purposes of this post. Those votes should  certainly be invalidated, but that doesn't usually happen by deleting  users.

 

The recent change to counting reputation from deleted questions if  they are old enough and have at least three upvotes moves the whole  reputation system further into a direction where reputation can't be  taken away after some time. The reasoning for this change was that  even though certain questions are off-topic now, they used to be  on-topic and therefore the reputation earned had some meaning then.  This provides further precedent that reputation shouldn't be removed  retroactively on a large scale.

You're not the only one thinking this behaviour should be changed, my own feature request on Meta.SO to change this is the second-most upvoted unresolved feature request at the moment with a score of over 200.

As far as I understand from some comments from SE developers, changing this would be pretty complicated technically. Just transferring the votes to the community user would not work as no user can vote multiple times for the same post.

For reference, here is the text of my argument on Meta to change this behaviour:

 

Currently, when a moderator deletes a user all of the user's votes  are removed along with the user himself. I was pretty surprised at  this behaviour when I first heard about it, and I don't think it is a  good idea to throw away all of the votes just because the user is  deleted.

 

Votes are locked after a short while and you can't change your vote  unless the post is edited. This is a precedent that shows that users  don't have complete control over their old votes, their ability to  change or remove their votes is restricted for the benefit of the  whole site. I don't understand why users that get deleted are suddenly  exempt from this restriction.

 

The drawback of removing the votes is that we throw away valuable  information. Voting plays an important role on SE sites, and every  time an active user is deleted we throw away some of that information.

 

I also don't see why rage-quitting users get to remove one kind of  contribution (votes) while we stop them if they try to remove their  other contributions to the site (posts). We stop users from deleting  all their posts because they still provide value to the site, I don't  see why we shoud treat votes any different. They might have less value  than posts, but they are useful to the site as a whole.

 

I'm ignoring any vote invalidation in connection with vote fraud or  sock puppeting for the purposes of this post. Those votes should  certainly be invalidated, but that doesn't usually happen by deleting  users.

 

The recent change to counting reputation from deleted questions if  they are old enough and have at least three upvotes moves the whole  reputation system further into a direction where reputation can't be  taken away after some time. The reasoning for this change was that  even though certain questions are off-topic now, they used to be  on-topic and therefore the reputation earned had some meaning then.  This provides further precedent that reputation shouldn't be removed  retroactively on a large scale.

You're not the only one thinking this behaviour should be changed, my own feature request on Meta.SO to change this is the second-most upvoted unresolved feature request at the moment with a score of over 200.

As far as I understand from some comments from SE developers, changing this would be pretty complicated technically. Just transferring the votes to the community user would not work as no user can vote multiple times for the same post.

For reference, here is the text of my argument on Meta to change this behaviour:

 

Currently, when a moderator deletes a user all of the user's votes  are removed along with the user himself. I was pretty surprised at  this behaviour when I first heard about it, and I don't think it is a  good idea to throw away all of the votes just because the user is  deleted.

 

Votes are locked after a short while and you can't change your vote  unless the post is edited. This is a precedent that shows that users  don't have complete control over their old votes, their ability to  change or remove their votes is restricted for the benefit of the  whole site. I don't understand why users that get deleted are suddenly  exempt from this restriction.

 

The drawback of removing the votes is that we throw away valuable  information. Voting plays an important role on SE sites, and every  time an active user is deleted we throw away some of that information.

 

I also don't see why rage-quitting users get to remove one kind of  contribution (votes) while we stop them if they try to remove their  other contributions to the site (posts). We stop users from deleting  all their posts because they still provide value to the site, I don't  see why we shoud treat votes any different. They might have less value  than posts, but they are useful to the site as a whole.

 

I'm ignoring any vote invalidation in connection with vote fraud or  sock puppeting for the purposes of this post. Those votes should  certainly be invalidated, but that doesn't usually happen by deleting  users.

 

The recent change to counting reputation from deleted questions if  they are old enough and have at least three upvotes moves the whole  reputation system further into a direction where reputation can't be  taken away after some time. The reasoning for this change was that  even though certain questions are off-topic now, they used to be  on-topic and therefore the reputation earned had some meaning then.  This provides further precedent that reputation shouldn't be removed  retroactively on a large scale.

You're not the only one thinking this behaviour should be changed, my own feature request on Meta.SO to change this is the second-most upvoted unresolved feature request at the moment with a score of over 200. 

As far as I understand from some comments from SE developers, changing this would be pretty complicated technically. Just transferring the votes to the community user would not work as no user can vote multiple times for the same post.

For reference, here is the text of my argument on Meta to change this behaviour:

 

Currently, when a moderator deletes a user all of the user's votes  are removed along with the user himself. I was pretty surprised at  this behaviour when I first heard about it, and I don't think it is a  good idea to throw away all of the votes just because the user is  deleted.

 

Votes are locked after a short while and you can't change your vote  unless the post is edited. This is a precedent that shows that users  don't have complete control over their old votes, their ability to  change or remove their votes is restricted for the benefit of the  whole site. I don't understand why users that get deleted are suddenly  exempt from this restriction. 

 

The drawback of removing the votes is that we throw away valuable  information. Voting plays an important role on SE sites, and every  time an active user is deleted we throw away some of that information.

 

I also don't see why rage-quitting users get to remove one kind of  contribution (votes) while we stop them if they try to remove their  other contributions to the site (posts). We stop users from deleting  all their posts because they still provide value to the site, I don't  see why we shoud treat votes any different. They might have less value  than posts, but they are useful to the site as a whole.

 

I'm ignoring any vote invalidation in connection with vote fraud or  sock puppeting for the purposes of this post. Those votes should  certainly be invalidated, but that doesn't usually happen by deleting  users.

 

The recent change to counting reputation from deleted questions if  they are old enough and have at least three upvotes moves the whole  reputation system further into a direction where reputation can't be  taken away after some time. The reasoning for this change was that  even though certain questions are off-topic now, they used to be  on-topic and therefore the reputation earned had some meaning then.  This provides further precedent that reputation shouldn't be removed  retroactively on a large scale.