>>slavin+M
I agree. I might, if I were king of HN, create a playground of sites I thought ( or the community thought ) were irrelevant or 'least likely to succeed' ( they do this in high school year books! ( they imply it by having 'most likely to succeed')). Another thing, don't down vote comments; if a comment is bad then it will be on the lower end of the page and that should speak for itself. Down voting comments, I am fairly sure, will discourage hackers that have cool ideas to contribute but that may have been inspired to write a one liner 'Beavis and Butthead' style sentence. This is merely people having fun. I think this type of fun is being discouraged. If comments are offensive then remove the user. . .. Why is there a need to punish, in front of the public HN community, people that would like to say things that they thought was witty ( or for that matter share a link that they thought was witty at the time ). By down voting input that is not 'bannable' ( I don't think that was a word ) you are simply discouraging contribution ( either links or comments )( even if that contribution is below your threshold of content you would idealize on this site ) and that is 1) a method to shape the landscape of the of the site in the way you see appropriate 2) discouraging hackers ( they will either leave or comment less ) and shaping the content that they feel comfortable contributing. I have a feeling pg would say something like 'you can make your own site and create the rules how you see fit', and I would agree with that as well.