After reading all of the comments, it seems clear that most of the community wants some sort of "downvote" mechanism to assure that comments and articles lacking quality do not reach the front page and do not "clog" up the HN community.
It also seems clear that HN wants to tweak the system so that it's fair, doesn't allow for people who simply disagree without just reason to downvote an article, and holds the integrity of the community.
I have to add that any system implemented has to be simple but effective (two sets of downvotes is not simple, for example).
So my suggestions:
- Downvotes still exist to make sure articles and comments lacking quality, or are clearly karma-bombs designed to bring something to the front page.
- You can't downvote until you've gotten to understand the community. That means a minimum Karma limit, say 50, that signifies that you've contributed to HN enough to know the general rules of the community and some of the nuances that make HN what it is. You could also make it so you can't upvote or downvote after say, 25 karma. The number's arbitrary, the point is that you need to time to understand the community before you start downvoting items.
- Karma count doesn't appear until there's -3 or +3. That eliminates initial biases and "peer pressure" voting for an article starting out. Not ideal, but could work.
- Most of all, we must remember that, if a person is submitting quality, any downvotes they get for any reason is going to be balanced out by a greater amount of upvotes.
No system is perfect, but you need downvotes for quality control. Let those who have more connection to the community do that work if necessary.