Please also review our SoylentNews Moderation Guidelines.
As always, we are willing to make changes to the system, but please post examples *with* links to any cases of suspected mod abuse. It's a lot easier to justify changing the system when evidence is in black and white. I also recommend that users make serious proposals on changes we can make. I'm not going to color the discussion with my own opinions, but as always, I will respond inline with comments when this goes live, and post a follow up article a few days after this one
(Score: 5, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday May 20 2015, @12:46PM
I find the "disagree" option also a bit pointless, but since it's actually "0 disagree" and not "-1 disagree", I consider it harmless. Receiving a "disagree" moderation is something I actually perceive as a flattery, as it shows I had something non-obvious to say that hit a nerve somehow, and yet others seemingly are not able to provide a counter-argument :-)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:52PM
Agree with this comment.
The times I've posted obvious replies and got "+5, Informative" etc, I felt ashamed.
For me a "-1, Troll" is important. There are too many people here who blow Google, and God's chosen are always on the lookout to down-mod anyone who mentions them.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday May 20 2015, @10:32PM
It mostly exists because of long standing complaints that it didn't exist, and (hopefully) prevents abusive downmods looking for another option. Each disagree mod *is* tracked, so if 10 people mark it disagree, and then it gets modded up, it would +3, Disagree, vs +3, Interesting. Kinda like the controversial tag on arstechnica.
Still always moving