If you're going to have flagging options on comments for uncivil or frivolous comments, you should probably raise the moderation floor to -1 or 0, because it doesn't seem fair to let people be downvoted below that point for disagreement alone.
I tried not displaying points on comments a while ago, in order to solve this problem, but users complained that this made HN harder to read because they couldn't pick out the good comments. I only gave it two days' trial though. Maybe I should have given it more time. Or maybe there is some other solution.
Anyone have any ideas?
Another possibility is to make the flag threshold higher but make the flags non anonymous(That might create a hostile environment though, e.g. tit-for-tat retaliation but I would hope this environment is mature enough for a frank discussion.)
Not showing any points above 5 (or 10 or whatever), while still having an internal counter might also help.
A trust system maybe. "I trust this user. So anything he put down as interesting I want marked as interesting."
Another idea I have is to require a reason for the downvote. Reasons could include: disagreement, uncivil, or offtopic. The score could be affected according to the reason. This could make downvoting more thoughtful and scores could be impacted less for disagreement.
Last idea: Instead of hiding all scores. Only hide the score for items with a score less than or equal to 1. These scores have less relevance and I think people will be less critical of comments if they don't see a negative score attached.
The only way to fix this I can see is either some form of meta-moderation where you hold people accountable for their votes (ala slashdot), or the system I'd personally rather see, where rather than a full-democracy the users pick whose votes they see on comments. I'd have my pool of 20-30 users whom I trust and I could see their scores vs the throng's.
Just as you hand-picked some users as moderators who you feel represent what you want HN to be, let us pick who we want to serve as our content filters.
It's a very interesting idea to have users see only the votes of other users they choose. One problem though is that it could easily lead to leaking who voted for what, which would make a lot of users (including me) uncomfortable. E.g. your pool is your 7 coworkers, and user x. One day you know all your coworkers are on a plane, and that you're therefore seeing user x's votes. Another problem is that it could be a lot more expensive to generate pages.
My original thinking was to suggest a combination of enforcing a minimum number of trusted users and then reporting a weighted average of your trusted users + the mass' rating but your solution is conceptually nicer since it adds the same noise to the vote but while extending the idea of valuing a particular user's judgement.
The big technical issue will be computing these "trusted ratings" for every comment. The trust graph could be done asynchronously so that wouldn't be an issue.
People would really need to evaluate each comment accordingly, knowing that each vote could potentially change a parents position on the page. This could entice people to use votes to steer the conversation towards the intellectually gratifying that they want further discussed, as opposed to just things they casually 'agree' with.
There will always be a majority opinion, which gets expressed through votes. As HN gets above a certain threshold of active users, the majority opinion will be indistinguishable from 'mob voting', unless users can be trained to not vote when the vote is already high in 'their' direction.
I don't think a 'honey pot' agree/disagree voting axis will work, unless it is visible to everyone. Otherwise, these users will express their opinion with the current up/down votes.