They wouldn't effect sorting, and only one can be used.
It would prevent dissenting opinions from being burried, and mob censorship/brigading would be more obvious.
Edit: Maybe up-disagree and down-agree combinations could be allowed.
Slowly I am becoming more and more sympathetic to the idea of no downvotes. They open the door for abuse by groups of like minded users and most people say downvotes should only be used on spam and off topic posts anyway.
Of course, removing downvotes does limit the options of users when faced with spam or off topic posts (and puts the onus on [possibly nonexistent] mods), so the result could acually decrease quality.
However, lots of drama and strife centers around downvotes, and they let cliques form and expel unwanted users from the community.
I think giving users comprehensive blocking tools would be a better solution. That way a user cannot poison a sub for the other subscribers since they can ignore him. Similarly, unwanted domains can be filtered out.
Cliques could still form, but the cliques would coexist in the same spaces and users who are indifferent can still see the posts of the outcast.
Spam would still be a bit of a problem because it won't be blocked for new users (they will be offput by a feed choked with spam that has been blocked by everyone). There is also the resource use of spam. I don't have a good solution for this aspect of the problem.
Don't like the user? Block user. Don't like the source? Block domain. Don't like the sub? Block it. Maybe there are even more ways to filter content.
Basically, give each user the tools to customize their experience. This way there can be less drama about community rules and interpersonal politics because less agreement is necessary.
Slowly I am becoming more and more sympathetic to the idea of no downvotes. They open the door for abuse by groups of like minded users and most people say downvotes should only be used on spam and off topic posts anyway.
Of course, removing downvotes does limit the options of users when faced with spam or off topic posts (and puts the onus on [possibly nonexistent] mods), so the result could acually decrease quality.
However, lots of drama and strife centers around downvotes, and they let cliques form and expel unwanted users from the community.
I think giving users comprehensive blocking tools would be a better solution. That way a user cannot poison a sub for the other subscribers since they can ignore him. Similarly, unwanted domains can be filtered out.
Cliques could still form, but the cliques would coexist in the same spaces and users who are indifferent can still see the posts of the outcast.
Spam would still be a bit of a problem because it won't be blocked for new users (they will be offput by a feed choked with spam that has been blocked by everyone). There is also the resource use of spam. I don't have a good solution for this aspect of the problem.
Don't like the user? Block user. Don't like the source? Block domain. Don't like the sub? Block it. Maybe there are even more ways to filter content.
Basically, give each user the tools to customize their experience. This way there can be less drama about community rules and interpersonal politics because less agreement is necessary.
I think the kind of voter that uses the down arrow as a disagree button, would continue to do so. They'd just have two arrows to hit.
I've thought about something like that, but I don't think it would significantly reduce the amount of abuse.
I think softening the power of the downvote would see better results. If a downvote only took away 0.5 points, then controversial comments would not sink too far. But ones that only got downvotes would still disappear.