3 ms·

Simple [possible] solution: restrict the number of downvotes and force people to prioritize. Further, you should get future downvotes only as a function of how

Simple [possible] solution: restrict the number of downvotes and force people to prioritize. Further, you should get future downvotes only as a function of how many downvotes you already have. If you have 0 downvotes, you don't get to do it again, ever. In this way, downvoting stops being a privilege you get at karma X and starts being something that's not to be squandered. I believe (or maybe hope) that every person here internally wants hacker news to be a good community, and that change will make them cognizant of the fact that downvotes are for special occasions where discourse is uncivil and not for "puttin' noobs in their places"

smokinjuan 17y ago
Another solution: make down votes "cost." If a user hits the down-vote then a comment box opens requiring a reason. I don't mind down votes, but I can't stand not knowing why. It's like a (bad) dog owner who comes home and beats the dog for pooping on the rug. Poor dog did that hours ago and thinks hes getting beat just because owner came home. No lesson learned and it fosters a poor relationship between the two and encourages "acting out." Additionally, if "the reason" received n down-votes HN could automatically cancel the DV to the original comment.