zlacker

>>tonmoy+(OP)
The one thing I wish was added - either in the guidelines or as a change to the actual web UI - was replying to a comment that you're downvoting; it's frustrating both to have one's own comments downvoted without explanation, and to come across a comment that's grey without obvious reason (Was it factually incorrect? Endorsing an unpopular idea? It's not always obvious).

(I'm not saying HN should do exactly the same thing, but one example is Slashdot's system where a comment can get downvoted in a way that tags it specifically as trolling/offtopic/whatever - https://slashdot.org/faq/mod-metamod.shtml seems to describe it alright)

>>yjftsj+3c
It's an interesting idea, but you'd end up with a situation where the worse the comment, the more discussion it generates due to the forced replies, which is sort of the opposite of what you want.

>>jedber+wd
Perhaps a system where a comment can only be downvoted if it has at least one reply? So someone has to explain, but only once

>>yjftsj+de
I think some sites have a feature, that when you downvote, you have to add some words/tags to why you downvote. I like that idea, it gives the commenter some concrete feedback, but also the downvoter a moment for reflection (is this really a bad comment, or do I just have a bite reflex because its language sounds like a (ideological) side I hate?)

I know that I have stupidly taken some downvotes personally, but later realized, those comments were maybe not bad by itself, but in that context attracting flamewar OT debates. With some extra words, I would have realized sooner.

And downvoting for merely not liking someones opinion is something I really don't like, but is explicitely allowed here.

>>hutzli+Sn
That sounds like a useful way