[mrleiter]

>eliminate downvoting

What you are asking here is to eliminate freedom of expression. By downvoting I voice my disagreement with your statement. Preferably there is a comment added, but that must not be necessary. Eliminating such a feature would give a distorted view of this community as a whole. One must live with the fact that not everybody has the same opinion.

>It's antisocial and pointless.

No, according to [0] antisocial is a behaviour that is contrary to the laws and customs of (a) society, in a way that causes annoyance and disapproval in others. In our society, or at least that is how I appreciate it, dissenting opinions are important and accepted. Yes, as mentioned above, a following argument would be nice, but isn't necessary. And also others must feel annoyed and be disapproving of it - not you. As to "pointless", see above.

[0]: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/antisoc...

[gkya]

Downvotes are not for disagreement. It's a tool against irrelevant, off-topic, apparently false comments. Disagreement is done via a refutation.

[dang]

That's never been the case on HN.

[gkya]

Neither my comment directly refers to HN in particular.

[chmaynard]

> By downvoting I voice my disagreement with your statement.

There seems to be a consensus here that disagreement is not a sufficient reason to downvote a comment. However, I don't see anything in the Guidelines about this.

[dalke]

There is no such consensus. Downvoting for disagreement has not only been common for years but even explicitly condoned by pg 8 years ago. It isn't in the guidelines because it isn't a guideline.

[chmaynard]

So you and Paul Graham both condone downvoting any opinion that you find disagreeable on HN. I respectfully disagree with that policy, and I hope we never cross paths again.

[dalke]

Ahh, the purity of seeing everything in black and white terms.

The topic was "is there a consensus that disagreement is not a sufficient reason to downvote a comment?" I pointed out that there is no evidence for a meaningful consensus even in this thread, with several people arguing in favor of downvote-for-disagreement. I pointed out that historically people have downvoted for disagreement, with links to examples, and I pointed to pg's early statement to that effect.

The evidence is that there is no consensus in HN readers, and that downvoting for disagreement, within limits, is allowed by the powers-that-be.

"Allowed" or "condoned" is different that your unjustified interpretation as "downvoting any opinion that you find disagreeable".

Just because we can send a man to the moon doesn't mean we should send all men to the moon.

[superswordfish]

I think it is fair to say that greying is contrary to the customs of HN. Think about it -- one user's disagreement/disgust/whatever immediately renders a comment suspicious. That doesn't seem to be in agreement with any "hacker spirit." I don't have a big problem with down-voting and ranking per se, but the greying stuff is lame. Your comment is grey right now and shouldn't be.