zlacker

I view downvotes as an incomplete feature. If you disagree with some content -- because it is misinformation, or useless, or maybe you just disagree with the argument -- you should be able to explain what's wrong with it. I would much rather have a system where a downvote required a reason, so instead of a downvote it would be more like a comment which can also -1 / 0 / +1 the karma of the parent.

>>wcerfg+(OP)
The downvote button is not a disagree button. If you disagree with something, add your own comment. That's the point of a discussion board.

Downvotes are for comments which are not worthy of a response because they are not honest attempts at discussion.

>>wcerfg+(OP)
Doesn't /. have this?

>>the-du+la
Yes. It's been a long time since I've been to /., but I used to be pretty active on it. You'd get 5 moderation points at a time, you'd only get those if you had good karma and you wouldn't get them very often. You applied them to comments and marked the reason for the up or down vote.

They also did meta-moderation. You could choose to meta-moderate and you'd be shown a post (or posts) with their moderation and could select whether the moderation was appropriate or not. So a post like yours that got marked "off-topic" by someone (it's not, it's a fair and earnest question) would result in the moderator getting some kind of penalty in meta-moderation.

Another thing I liked was that if you participated in the discussion your moderation points disappeared. So if I moderated your comment (up or down) and then replied elsewhere, your comment lost or gained a point.

>>kube-s+F6
> The downvote button is not a disagree button.

That's wishful thinking. In practice that's just what it is. I'd be in favor of some magical gui change that would fix that, but it doesn't exist.

>>hirund+7j
There are some GUI features that address this. For instance, there is no downvote button if you reply to someone, or if they reply to you. But ultimately, the use of the button is up to the community.