[neoclassical]

Downvoting is pointless. It encourages mass retribution against unpopular but valid topics.

As someone else said, if a topic is broken -- spam, stupid or otherwise useless -- it should be flagged appropriately. My two cents, or probably about six cents worth 1 cent in 1987 values.

[cema]

Someone voted you down. I voted you back up again. At least voting up is useful! (Feels good, too.)

Seriously, while down votes are needed sometimes, I think they are overused. I often see a legitimate comment voted down because someone apparently disagrees with its contents. This is not what down votes are for.

[Semiapies]

This keeps coming up, and people keep linking to pg's post on saying that's exactly the intent of down-voting.

[cema]

Well, pg controls it to a large extent, but not 100%.

[Semiapies]

It's his site. If he says downvoting is appropriate for expressing disagreement, then there's no basis for saying that isn't "what down votes are for".

[cema]

He has built the site, and people are building the news forum. It appears (or perhaps "it emerges") that what they are using the voting system for is close to his vision but not 100%. Of course he can still guide it, but the crowd works its ways.

[smithjchris]

Particularly when you go "against the grain" on here. If I dare say anything negative about LISP, Emacs, the environment or business mentality, I get shot down straight away.

[anamax]

Because Ghod knows that any negative comment about those topics is inherently good and worthwhile.

In other news, "they" didn't laugh at Einstein or Newton, but they did laugh at Bozo the Clown....

[cema]

Like just now. (Modded up though.)

[Semiapies]

You can't downvote topics.