> You don't think a downvote function could also be a good way to say "I disagree but have nothing more to add and I don't want to clutter the conversation"? C

> You don't think a downvote function could also be a good way to say "I disagree but have nothing more to add and I don't want to clutter the conversation"? Can you give an example in what situation this could be useful? When you disagree, there are many ways to disagree. If you just want to drive-by disagree, without making a proper argument, then perhaps it would be better (for everybody) if you just didn't engage at all, and let other people deal with the situation. Think about who you're doing the moderation for: other people. It's your job, as a moderator, to explain and educate well-intentioned people that you disagree with why do you disagree with them, or what do you perceive to be wrong with their comments. Then, as an added bonus, community can judge also your moderation criteria, by moderating on your counterargument or explanation. > There are plenty of times I disagree with a comment that don't deserve a response, however. For obvious trolls, there should be flagging and eventual deletion. Update: Actually, it could be useful to "disagree but have nothing to add" when you already agree with some of the responses. So, IMHO, the rule should be, you can downvote a comment only if you either (a) added a response or (b) upvoted an existing response.