OSNews

I think it is also meant as a filter for obvious trolls and troublemakers. Once a comment reaches a "0" score it is collapsed and must be clicked on to be read. It's meta-moderation Slashdot style, and it mostly works. That said, I always read a collapsed comment in case it was downvoted simply because it's an unpopular opinion or was written by someone unpopular. It may still be a valid comment despite the group opinion, and I wouldn't want to miss out on it.



This, combined with the restriction on voting more than once for the same person in a given time period, prevents an unscrupulous user from monopolizing on a discussion. Let's say Joe posts something insightful as a response to Bob's original post, but Bob hates Joe and will do anything to discredit him. With no restrictions in place, Bob can vote Joe's original comment down as well as any comment that supports Joe, while at the same time commenting away with his own opinions. This is unfair to Joe as well as the rest of us.

Of course, despite all these restrictions and rules the system is not perfect. I actually agree with you: I wish we didn't have comment voting at all. But since we do, the current system is tolerable and seems to do its job (meta-moderation) fairly well. If I were to suggest any improvements, it would be that members would have to earn votes instead of starting of with a given amount. Something like, for each time a comment hits the +5 threshold, they gain a comment vote point, and each time they are modded down to 0 or below, they lose a vote point. That keeps voting power out of the hands of the overt trolls. Unfortunately, it also gives too much power to the really popular people, so it's still far from perfect.