As far as I know, those are the main hard rules of downvoting.
The other thing is that you don't seem to be able to downvote comments which are a direct reply to your own comment (although you can up-vote them). You can downvote replies-of-replies though.
Or it just incentivizes them to click on your profile, click through to comments and down-vote everything not in direct reply.
Arguably that's a higher bar of caring but once that bar is exceeded it's far more damaging to civil discourse because then you've got factually correct technical comments down-voted into oblivion because that person happened to also commit WrongThink(TM) in the comments on an unrelated contentious subject.
You could also argue that it's an incentive to wait a day before taking a minority opinion on a divisive subject but I'm not sure that's something we want to be incentivizing.
I think probably the most important thing is that it clearly communicates what the expected behavior is. I don't think it's immediately obvious that downvoting a response to you is would be considered impolite. (After all, people down-vote things because they happen to disagree all the time; what's the difference if it's in response to something you wrote or in response to something someone else wrote?) But if it's clear that's the social norm, I think most people would just go along with it.
Adding an extra few seconds to retaliation probably does have an effect, but only on people who would consider breaking the social norm anyway.
EDIT: dang answers directly (500 or 501): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8381148 (2014)
I try to save downvotes for posts that are actively abusive or hurt the discussion (by being abusive). Not just for stuff I don't like or I find 'low effort' (although I understand why others might have different standards). I also try to be generous with upvotes for everyone who participates with me in good faith.
Oh, well.
They may have addressed this, and I just missed it. But in general I agree that this isn't the best format for describing this type of research to nonspecialist readers. I don't mind a slight dose of human-interest fluff, but the facts should come first.
(I take it from the patented HN instant downvote that the article did, in fact, answer my question, and I just missed it.)