I am HoHing this since it seems that the old debate of votes is once again alive, as it should be. I think the article itself is a good one, but I do not, however agree with your point that a 4.0 is the lowest of the good votes. A 3.0 is in my opinion a good vote for a short but solid submission. However; if my post has received a 3.0 and is 20 pages long I should have a look at it. So in my view, votes are not always just votes, they also reflect the submission itself. But there are no rules(there are guidelines) and forcing rules on people could very easily drive them away and work against the very concept of this page. What do we want? We want RPG related content, the votes are simply a guide trough that content. And the indicator as to the quality of the content is decided by the average of the votes cast by the people. It is not a perfect system but it is the best we have.
To quote Winston Churchill:
I really like most of your stuff Scrasamax, particularly your high tech post/sci-fi posts. But this article is a little much, I was hoping it would be a flippant and amusing piece. But it is instead another argument for talking oneself and by extension gaming too seriously. Maybe I missed the tone, but how can you write a article like this with out a sense of irony or absurdity?
I agree with most of the later posters that your scale is quite a bit skewed toward more room for the worst posts. A Likert Scale (which is what this is, more or less) should be equally distributed between 'points' (something like, poor, fair, average, good, excellent). But it did get me thinking that I take a lot from Strolens (I've been lurking quite some time) but rarely if ever comment on things. So, I vow to give some back. I don't know how much I will contribute of original material, but I can certainly give feedback.