>I really hate it when a comment that I put some thought into gets downvoted without a single reply. I'm pretty sure I didn't do anything obviously wrong, so if somebody still doesn't like my comment (e.g. they have a reasonable disagreement), I would like to know why.
This is exactly why I have that personal policy. If you pass the CAPTCHA, the 'post-to-account-age' ratio, and whatever tests you took to post then you deserve a reason when someone clicks 'DOWNVOTE'. Let the software take care of the real shit-posts.
>Requiring downvotes to be accompanied by a reply would also make trolls hesitate before they downvote something just because.
If you think "trolls" are doing a statistically appreciable amount of downvoting, I would suggest they aren't. "Disagreeable" people are more interested in making their point than they are with suppressing the ability of others to make theirs.
>For example, all those replies will take up valuable screen space without actually adding anything useful to the discussion
'folding' comment branches would fix this. Not folding by default (unless nested deeply enough to justify it anyway); That's just another way to hide 'undesirable' content.
>especially if the downvoted comment is worthless to begin with, and especially in the downvote-the-downvote scenario that I just outlined above.
Put the power in the user's hands. Downvote-the-downvote comments create transparency.
>but I'm ok with downvoting requiring slightly more effort (picking a reason).
How about downvoting requiring a reply? I reply to everyone I downvote, the exception being copypasta, strictly-copypasta. A one-word variation on copypasta gets a reply.
There we go. It's cool seeing how the other half lives but there's a reason I don't usually comment here. HN comments are on par with Slashdot (now, not then). This post gives me the impression that a foamy circle-jerk is the _objective_.
How often do you upvote comments like that? Those comments you disagree with, yet are well-thought-out, add a lot to the discussion or at least your understanding of what's going on and other people's points of view.
I don't think people do that enough and it leads to comment-bloat. "I'll make my point and then add in a platitude to draw in the upvotes, hopefully balancing out the downvotes I'll get for my opinion."
You might be holding on to 'outdated' definitions. Here they are as they stand now:
Troll: Disagrees with individual or community. No/little/inadequate attempt to soothe egos potentially damaged.
Toxic: Disagrees and presents an alternative that is dangerous to the ego of the individual or community.
This comment is now considered "trolling" and I, a "troll".
Edit: An especially correct "troll" (as above) can be promoted to "toxic" without presenting an alternative if the disagreement is particularly damaging to the ego of individual or community.