Actually, no.

I (partly) agree with the posters that say people would abuse it. Maybe they will. Still, there are ways to prevent it that weren't listed(I think. I'm not reading that now)

For example, one could be limited to one or two "no, thanks" per thread, so that it can't be used like the "thanks" now, every post. Voting No again removes previous No.

Bugs.Maemo.org uses a per-project limit of 20 votes. Nice idea, but bad implementation (Nokia wants to count people, so it works like that). However, Borland gives a user 5 votes. For ever. You want a bug fixed, you cast a vote, you have 4 left. If you have voted for 5 bugs, then you have to decide where you want the focus. Fix the new one or keep the old?

This builds a very, very effective system because a bug with 20 votes means that either 20 people feel this is quite important or 5 people are actually dieing out there.

E.g. One could have -say- 3 "no"s a day, more if active members that run around doing stuff. Mods have unlimited. You browse the forum, find the lolzer, cast your -1, likely anonymously so you can still help the user without resentment (though why you would care after modded down?).

Anyway, for example a repost of a well-known problem could be answered with a link to the talk thread relevant, them modded down by 1. This way, the next person that sees "1.1 doesn't have 3G! [1 reply] [-1]" knows it's been taken care of.

Mods could remove the -1 of other users should they run into a bad mod or a misunderstood issue.

I have other ideas on how to keep this from being rampant, still, troll-like posts would be quickly buried and that alone is sorta worthwhile.