Btw I think there is an old pg post sanctioning downvoting for disagreement.

Edit: wouldn't downvote a comment to zero either

FYI, here's PG's comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

My preference (and that's really all this is, my preference), as has since been suggested, is that unless the comment is clearly unconstructive/offensensive/antagonizing, people leave a reply along with a downvote (or upvote an existing reply they more strongly agree with).

The voting mechanism means whatever the end user wants it to mean. I use a simple metric: did the comment improve, or detract from, the conversation?

What's so wrong with the idea of upvoting a post that you intend to rebut if it neatly articulates a reasonable position?

You're right that "bad for the world" opinions should likely be downvoted, but I often disagree with comments that are not so without feeling a desire to downvote them.

People has many times suggested to force a reply when you down vote to counter the emptiness that a lone down vote leaves.

1) "That was an insightful comment, and I agree with you" 2) "That was a reasonable comment, but I disagree with you" and 3) "You're an idiot"

If someone says something interesting/insightful/useful, upvote. If someone says something totally inane, downvote. If someone says something which seems reasonable, but with which you don't agree, either upvote or just don't vote.

http://www.davezor.net/2011/02/online-conversations/

I think it makes sense to both upvote the (correct) response and downvote the overly-upvoted mistaken post; this brings the point-balance of the conversation back in line with reality, rather than letting incorrect posts which might attract a lot of upvotes because they pander to a particular sentiment, or repeat a common myth, dominate the conversation.

Someone may upvote someone's post because..

1. It adds something to the discussion... or

2. It's funny.. or

3. They agree about it.. or

4. they just want to troll... or

5. they like that person.. or

6. all of above.

And with that I you can pretty much say that you would downvote doing the exact opposite.

Someone may downvote someone's post because..

1. It doesn't add something to the discussion... or

2. It isn't funny.. or

3. they disagree about it.. or

4. they find you're trolling... or

5. they dislike that person.. or

6. all of above.

So yeah, in the mind Disagree = Downvote

For example, if I say "crowdsourcing is a superior way for startups to get design work done because it's cheaper and gives you more choices" you can be sure the design community would see this as unconstructive, offensive and antagonizing because there is so much pathos surrounding crowdsourcing.

Disclaimer: I am not using any voting techniques, up or down, on this post or any comments therein.

I've found that most of the people with high karma and low averages just say snarky one-liners all of the time and some of that happens to land with people (for better or worse) giving them a decent amount of karma despite a lack of contribution.

I've only had a few instances of down-vote spirals without refuting arguments, but I tell you, it feels like crap. I'm very likely to even change my mind regarding a subject when somebody is kind enough to present their point of view, even if they down-vote my comment along the way.

I feel HN is a very constructive environment most of the time, but sadly I'm beginning to keep my opinion to myself in threads with high-fanboy presence, where the damnation of subjective anonymous down-votes sometimes makes it feel more like 4chan.

Indeed, as some have pointed out, the guidelines say otherwise. However, the guidelines were mostly laid out when pg started this, uh, site. Social sites do not always behave exactly the way their creators intended. If the bulk of people want to do it another way, that's the way it will be done (unless pg decides to force a different way), and I see no problem if it is spelled out.

For example: ^30 Like(30) | Dislike (30)

The point is that people react through visual familiarity. We are to condition to see the UP and DOWN arrows as positive and negative.

It's my vote. I'll use it to mean what I want.

If not: Just because you have the freedom to do as you like, that does not mean that your decision is automatically correct. There are good decisions and bad decisions. If no one was allowed to comment on other people's decisions, sites like HN would have no comments at all. In fact, all discussions would be discouraged.

Talking about how people should act is not necessarily a prelude to forcing them to act that way.

i agree, being down voted for an opinion is rather ridiculous. if you don't agree, state it, don't manipulate with a proverbial lever.