I'm not sure what's up with that deaded comment. Most 'outlying opinions', when reasonably defended (e.g., with paragraphs and citations) seem to do pretty wel

I'm not sure what's up with that deaded comment. Most 'outlying opinions', when reasonably defended (e.g., with paragraphs and citations) seem to do pretty well. There's a clear 'winner', in that one set of responses will have scores that dwarf the dissent, but rarely do I see earnestly given, somewhat supported answers drowned below -1. (Example, from the first headline on /best that appeared politicky enough to incite vitriol: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=738357 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=738357) Iconoclastic comments are difficult to discern from foolish comments because all votes get pooled- the disagree vote and the 'not contributing' vote count the same (as they should). A potential method to prop up iconoclastic comments: when a post has received a large number of votes on both sides, display both counts, as opposed to the summed count. This gives a fighting chance to differentiate the 'derp derp derp' from the controversial, and helps reconcile the differences in how downvotes are used against arguments of differing qualities.