I think one problem is that there are two different ways people can vote. One is to cast a vote for or against a comment, expressing your opinion. This works well when there the point total is low.

The other way is to vote towards how many points you think is should have. So if something has 15 points, if I agree with it but think it's not that good to have 15 points, I sometimes downvote it. Likewise, I'll upvote some heavily downvoted comments because they weren't that bad. I figure no comment should be below -1 unless it's overtly belligerent or trollish.

I've thought the same thing. But, I think that to say that a comment has X number of upvotes so it's good or bad doesn't really work since there's no max points a comment can have, or knowledge of how many people voted on it, I'm sure there are some other variables that would make it work.

My idea to solve the problem you're talking about is to have 3 ways to vote. The usual up/down (which in this case can be agree/disagree) and a third for good comments that the user doesn't particularly agree with. It's a rough idea, but I think it could help solve the problem.

Something else I've been toying with that's along similar lines involves removing any up/down/other voting and instead uses a small area of say, 50x50 pixels. The X axis would be the quality of the comment, the the Y would be personal agreement with the comment. And the user could just click anywhere within that area to express their opinion. It's not as easily quantifiable as regular voting, but allows for more expression.

Just some thoughts. :)

This is a good idea. I've certainly seen great comments (that I may have disagreed with) at some negative score, and terrible comments with scores of like 23.

A "I think this is a good comment" or "I think this is a poor comment" is certainly different from "I agree with this" or "I disagree with this". The later seems to be how the voting system ends up degenerating into sadly.

Okay, I'm one of the people who voted for that "harsh" comment, so I'm going to take a stab at defending it.

Writing anything here requires a lot of time and thought. You can't just dash something off. Careless comments are frowned on, and rightly so. In particular, if I choose to disagree with something, I have to really pick my battles. More often than not, I just don't have the time or energy to get that involved. So if there's another comment that is at least in the same ballpark as what I would have written, I'll just vote that one up instead. Then I don't have to personally join the fray.

I am of the opinion that, while Dustin Curtis' heart might be in the right place, the way he's going about expressing himself in the AA situation is not very good. And if he can dish it out, he should be willing to take it. So while the comment in question is perhaps more vitriolic than I would have written myself, this is a topic I didn't feel strongly enough about myself to get personally involved. So I just voted up somebody else who did.

So, "angry mob?" Man, I really don't think I'd characterize the comment that way. But I'm open to hearing from other people who think so.

On the harshness scale, I'm surprised with the number of downvotes some recent comments get not on the quality of a comment, but that the voter disagrees with its stance.

I like well-crafted comments that I completely disagree with; it challenges me to rethink my own position. I'd hate to see people get fed up and not write comments simply because it goes against the grain; it would change the nature of the site, and to me, part of its value.

You have a point on this one, I recently moved over to HN from Slashdot. I was one of the first 100 users over there, so it was hard to accept that the place had gone completely to pot.

Anyway, I am sidetracking, let me get back to the point. One of the things that makes me jump from a site and not look back is down modding because of disagreement with the idea of the post and not with the nature of the post. I feal that just because you do not agree with a subject of a post if it is well articulated, covers that persons rational and is not abusive or deriding then if you don't agree with it just move along.

In saying that, I have had allot of post here that I thought where great debates (which I love) get blasted down to -1. None of which I thought where particular offensive or abusive. I am passionate and opinionated but to down mod for that, reflects of a desire to constrict ones freedom of expression.

Let me be clear I do not blame HN for this, it is a personal issue among each of us as individuals, but one should really be introspective before they click that button either way (up or down) and ask themselves, is this a good argument, not just I agree with this or I don't like what this guy is saying. If a person does not then they should really reflect on their ability to critically analyze information as they are doing themselves a disservice by limiting their horizons to there own intellectual prejudices.

The new method of debuting new comments at the top of the page -- a good thing, in terms of trying to keep discussion fresh & open to latecomers' good ideas -- may also have increased how rewarding the site is to quick negative posts.

It used to be that the highest-scoring comment on a thread squatted at the top of the page forever (occasionally displaced by some slow-moving boulder of a competitor). These posts acted as quieting blankets of calm over the whole page.

Now, new comments get debuted at the top of the page, and if they can draw a few lightning strikes of upvotes ("yeah! that's right! screw that!"), they get a chance to stay there, or at least contribute some positive reward to the poster.

The ability to downvote brings out the bad in people. I made a suggestion before to experiment with only allowing up votes. No one's feelings get hurt but good comments still get pushed to the top.