Is it Time the Agree/Disagree System Gets an Update?

Here on N4g there is a system that every user has used at least once. That system is the ability to vote on a comment, with either and "agree" or "disagree." This allows users to show the popular opinion among a sea of comments and helps dissuade abuse of said ability. Although, it is not a flawless system, and unfortunately many have lowered the integrity of the system.

The primary issue that has arisen is the abuse of the systems anonymity. Agree/Disagree votes (here on referred to simply as votes) allow users to place votes on comments without any need to account for their actions. Many users have taken this ability to an extreme and will base their votes on nothing but their own personal preference. This is to be expected, however, unlike comments they can use this system to promote incorrect or inflammatory comments without it reflecting upon that user in any way. The problem here is when users add agree votes to users who are clearly stirring up trouble, off-topic or any other form of unwanted behavior. They effectively can promote users to act and react in a way that the community dislikes, without any accountability for such actions.

What I propose is that the vote system adds a minor change, a change that removes this anonymity, the ability to view users who vote. It may be a bit difficult to implement, depending on the coding for the site's comment section, but one that I and many others would benefit from. I think, just as with comments, that users should be accountable for comments that they are promoting. One of the largest causes of "fanboy" behavior is the ability to hide your identity online.

In closing, I would like to point out other site's solutions, and their results. Firstly, we have IGN, they chose to remove down votes (their equivalent to a disagree) and it is semi-successful. It has removed the ability of users to dislike comments that are productive, on-topic and relevant. The issue is, it has not hindered the opposite spectrum. The only other solution I have seen, is practiced by a few, is to remove voting altogether. This has never effectively managed any of the issues as far as I could tell.

I would love to see N4G take a step in the direction of creating a more civil and less toxic environment. It would also give all users a fair chance at sharing their opinion without users blindly voting in a reactionary way. At least not without other being able to clearly see how users truly react.

[cl1983]

Things will be changing with the roll out of the new n4g , which is happening before the end of the year.

[ISHU]

WHAAAAAAAAAAT??
A new N4G this year??

I can't wait to see how it looks like. Can you give us a sneak peek or give some info on how it will look like?

[cl1983]

I can tell you that the bubble system will be gone, and that it's a new web page that isn't the same as the current setup. However somethings we have stay and others go.

[bixxel]

Board the hype train. Now.

[WildArmed]

That's what you said last year :O

But yes, Bubbles are disappearing!

[cl1983]

I've always previously said between now and the year 2525.

[MakinBaconXD]

I might get disagrees from saying this,but I have been on this site since 2011 and I still do not understand what is so important about bubbles? I guess it's because compared to some people here,I don't really comment that much,if you looked at my comment history you could tell most of mine are pretty much made days,weeks or even months apart from each other.

[SteamPowered]

I had a Moderator tell me that last year.

[cl1983]

I never told you that though.

[WildArmed]

Neither did I :O

you can trust... nah :D Surprises are better :)

[Rookie_Monster]

Not just last year, but a new system was set to replace the current bubble system had already been preached and promised to go live like over 750 days ago, roughly 2 years went by and every year, it is the same old story and never a hint if is coming until someone brings it up in a blog or something.

Here is a similar blog by an old mod promising the new system would go up year's end 2 years ago and we are still waiting.
http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...

Hope the third time is the charm because I am tired of the politics of being on the minority side and getting our voice shot down by the unfair bubble system due to the "You are either with us, or against us" attitude of many members here that belonged to one dominant side.

After examining many posts with how "trolling, off topic, etc" are marked and reported, there is no doubt the curent bubble system was used way more to bully people to shut up and agree with the dominant group than it was used to punish trolls.

Sorry for the long rant and post but I only have a single bubble so I got to say everything I wanted to say in one setting.

[Nineball2112]

Imagine how we feel. We are only telling you what we've been told. If you don't want to believe it, I understand, but there you have it.

[WildArmed]

Just to be clear, we are kind of like the press.

We get info from the dev team, and we put it out.

Whenever we hear something, we like to share it when possible.

[freshslicepizza]

is there a way to find out who the people are that are tracking you in my public profile? there should be an option to disable others from tracking you.

[annoyedgamer]

I hope they don't remove downvotes. I believe it is too sterile, not a fan of the "feel good" solutions. It is akin to the safe space nonsense on progressive college campuses and the "disagreement hurts feelings" mantra.

It could, as you suggested, be removed completely but that takes some of the fun out off commenting. One of the big reasons we return to see our comments is to (for better or worse) count agrees and disagrees then lastly read replies which according to the bubble rank we may or may not be able to respond too.

The bubble system needs an overhaul since those that are popular get more chances to comment than those who are not.

[HammadTheBeast]

Honestly, they should just rip off Reddit's comment system.

[annoyedgamer]

Reddit has been taken over by a SJW, they are not going to have downvoting options much longer. There are virtual riots and a mass exodus from that site right now.

A popular Reddit alternative site crashed not to long ago due to their servers getting overloaded.

[garrettbobbyferguson]

No! Any comment system that can censor someone for having a differing opinion is a bad comment system. You have to go out of your way to read comments on that website that have received X amount of downvotes, effectively censoring that comment from reaching any sort of discussion.

[DefenderOfDoom2]

Yeah , i like the agree ,disagree system the way it is now .

[SteamPowered]

The bubble system is a mess. I see people get a bazillion 'Agrees', then get bubbled down for 'immature or trolling'.

Lord help you if you dont follow popular opinion on N4G...

[cl1983]

Whether a comment is agreed with our not doesn't change whether it's trolling, off topic, immature ect.

[SteamPowered]

Depends if its a slight against Microsoft or Sony.

Sony=Trolling
Microsoft=Hilarious. Bubs +

[tanukisuit]

@ cl1983
Would it be possible prevent NEW users from commenting right away? Ever since E3, there's been way too many new accounts that just "bubble-suicide" with trolling/immature comments.

[FlexLuger]

Just get rid of it. If people disagree with an opinion they should voice there reasons why and get it off their chests, as long as they are not immature about it. if anything it encourages response. the aggree/disagree things probably make some feel like they are more right than others, so I think it should go. Glad the bubble system is going too. Seen far too much abuse of it to be honest.

[StormLegend]

I always try to say nothing but postive/good things and I only have 1 freaking bubble -_-

They need to give everyone more bubbles or get rid of it..

[SilentNegotiator]

If you're losing bubbles, look back at the comments that you lost them on and don't repeat the behavior. It's that simple.

Attacking users in an uncivilized manner? Lose a bubble.
Using bad language (Hey, if that's what N4G wants...)? Lose a bubble.
Immature comment? Lose a bubble.
Make an off topic remark? Lose a bubble.
Blatant trolling? Lose a bubble.

Make an interesting, well stated, intelligent, funny, or helpful comment that serves to improve the discussion at hand? Gain a bubble.

[star_lancer]

N4G would be a better place if what you said was true. Unfortunately, you really have to follow popular opinion, and favor one company over another, if you want to gain bubbles or avoid losing them.

I haven't been here very long, but I can see what comments are marked, and which users lose bubbles, and it's quite biased.

[SilentNegotiator]

I've been here 5 and a half years. It is true.

[pcz]

the agree/disagree system is fine, but i think the bubble system is flawed.

i think people are more likely to bubble somebody down, then up. and i could bubble down every single person in this thread for absolutely no reason, if i wanted to. ie, its easy to troll the system. its easy to be trolled. somebody might be bubbling you down every single time they see your reply.

if there are 10x the amount of ps4 users than wiiu users, then anytime the two meet, the wiiu users are statistically going to be worse off. so what you get is a 'bubble ghetto', where just because you are a minority, you are at disadvantaged.

people simply say what they think people want to hear, instead of saying their true opinions, because they know any controversial comment will lose them bubbles. so you essentially have something akin to politicians who just say 'the right thing' all the time.

all the people with loads of bubbles kiss ass.

hey, i know i will get disagree votes, but hey, it only serves as an illustration proving everything i say is true

[freshslicepizza]

it appears as though whatever the majority agrees with the better off you are. you can say the ps4 has no games and if a lot of people actually agree with that they will put down their agrees and perhaps bubble you up (or down). same thing with saying xbox gamers don't like indies. both comments are not intelligent and neither improves the discussions at hand but the members will still vote agree on it and bubble up and down without anyone knowing who did or didn't.

another issue is you have those who don't like certain members and will vote against you just out of spite no matter what you say.

i agree people should lose bubbles for being an ass but the bubble up system could be exploited if you just so happen to like that member regardless of the comment they make. when the community monitors itself you get into special treatment and favortism as well as unwarranted attacks and stealth trolling.

[N0TaB0T]

The bubble system just incites an extent of censorship, if you don't like someones attitude or they are just plain hostile then ban them. Don't shoehorn wiggle room into the equation.

[DragonKnight]

Eh, the bubble system has its flaws, but in many ways it's leagues better than the other systems out there.

[Speed-Racer]

Not really. One of the biggest problems over at TechSpy for instance is that when people run out of bubbles, the conversation dies. That's a huge problem if you ask me.

[SilentNegotiator]

How often do users REALLY expend all of their bubbles on Techspy, though? That's not exactly something I've seen a lot of.

Also...
"Heat" of hottest N4G stories (today): 830, 580, 460, 370, 290, 230, 220, 200, 190, 180, 180
"Heat" of hottest Techspy stories (today): 220, 180, 160, 120, 110, 110, 100, 90, 90, 80, 60

...am I assuming too much to think that Techspy has a less active community and less traffic, anyway? Maybe it doesn't work as well there because there's less people gaining and losing bubbles, but there's plenty of that here.

[rainslacker]

Here the conversation dies when a topic is over a day old...if it's lucky to go that long. Then it just starts over the next day in the next article which just happens to be a slight variation or opinion article of whatever prompted the conversation to begin with.

The bubble system is flawed only in that it doesn't keep the rampant trolling and off topic comments from happening, it just keeps the same person from doing it over and over in the same thread.

There's been only one or three times in the 5 years or so I've been commenting(after lurking for a while) that I ever ran out of bubbles in a decent conversation. I usually waste them in just random replies.

[Ilovetheps5]

You say that the system is bad because someone clicks agree or disagree based on the personal opinion. Well yeah, if I agree with something, it's because that person shares the same opinion as myself. This isn't a vote on whether or not the post is a good post, but rather whether I agree with the post or not. If someone says that they think a game is really good, I can agree if I thought the game was good or disagree if I thought the game was bad. This just shows where the community stands on an issue. If I disagree with your post, it doesn't necessarily make your post a bad one, but rather one I just don't agree with.

[nicksetzer1]

But if you don't have to be accountable for your vote then you can just go around downvoting valid comments and agreeing with invalid ones. Not sure how you don't understand that. The system is fine, the anonymity is not. If you make a vote people should be able to see that YOU made that vote rather than just a number of people who made that vote.

[Ilovetheps5]

And what exactly would erasing the anonymity accomplish? Why would I care if you know that I agreed with a comment? Are you going to start messaging every single person that disagrees with a post you make? It didn't stop people from downvoting stuff on IGN when you could see who downvoted. A troll is a troll. Erasing the anonymity doesn't fix the issue at all.

[nicksetzer1]

It would matter because instead of being able to push an agenda in secret the community would know the true motives of the users. If users are going around saying one thing and then voting in an opposing fashion, or a more extreme manner, then it should be known.

Not sure why you think I have tyo message every person just because I can see their votes.... not even sure how those 2 things are related. We know the names of people who make comments and people rarely message each other either, not sure where you get this idea from...

My question still is Why are you so against it?

[Ilovetheps5]

I'm not for or against it. I just think it's an unnecessary step. It will solve nothing, so why do it? We should focus our attention in other directions.

The reason I asked if you would message them is because that would be the only thing you could do if you found out who was disagreeing. As I said, how will seeing who disagreed change anything? And are you that paranoid about people "pushing an agenda"? If you don't agree with their agenda, disagree with them and move on. This solution of yours will solve NOTHING. I couldn't care less if you see that I disagreed with you because you're some random guy on the internet. So just try and tell me how removing the anonymity will keep people from disagreeing with you or whatever.

[rainslacker]

Hmmmm...it sounds like you're talking about what is done in forums that use Disquss(only one I can think of off the top of my head). Mouse over the agree/disagree text and it gives a list of who voted.

Sounds reasonable, but realistically....why?

What would you do if you knew who disagreed with you? Would you PM each and every one of them and ask them why they disagree? If people care to discuss with you about why they agree or disagree with you, then they will leave a comment, or send you a PM.

Leaving it anonymous allows users to choose their level of interaction. They can simply choose to add their voice as a simple agreement or disagreement to help build consensus, or they can actively engage in the conversation. Simple as that.

If you feel your comments present reasonable arguments, then you shouldn't really care about the agree/disagree system. If you see a lot of people disagreeing, and you feel the above, then you either didn't explain your argument well enough, you are actually wrong and should research your argument, people don't care about your argument, you've antagonized people by going to some extreme, or you've simply run into fan boys. Whatever the reason, you don't really need to know the reason why....just ignore them and go on to discuss with people who want to discuss.

Honestly, I'd prefer a system that allows users to upvote comments and move the more relevant posts to the top, and the fanboyish ones to the bottom. It'd still be abused, but we would have to wade through less of the crap to get to the good comments.

To be off topic for a moment though, has anyone else noticed they are getting more news from the comments lately than they are from the actual articles? Not across the board of course, but overall it seems some posters are more informed than the people providing the articles.

[MakinBaconXD]

Finally someone brought up Disqus,that comment system is a damn travesty,I'd say I hate disqus almost as much as I hate the one-sided Facebook "likes" -___-

[nicksetzer1]

"Sounds reasonable, but realistically....why?"

What a stupid argument, I could just as easily say "why not" and be just ignore everything you said also. I already said why not.

Why would you want to have user be annonymous? If someone says "I hate mexicans" and then 4 people agree, wouldn't you say that adds toxicity to the community and that comment section in question? Also when people state literal facts and get disagrees, it makes no sense. Those people do it simply because they don't have to be attached to that vote at all. They could go around throwing votes si.ply to push an agenda and not actually ever support it.

My suggestion isn't to seek revenge (as you try to suggest) it is so the community can see how people have voted and what their opinions are. People floating around saying great things but then giving votes directly opposing that should be known. It allows a more informed and intelligent community and lowers the ability for user to abuse the system.

I find it strange that you are so upset at the proposition that users votes be shown. Seems you have some reason why you NEED to be anonymous with your votes. Name 1 benefit of the anonymity, because I sure cannot think of one. You named a few reasons why it isn't necessary, not a single one why it is better though. Because it isn't better.

[rainslacker]

I'm not upset about it. I just question the reason you need to know who agrees and disagrees with you, and what purpose would showing who's who would actually serve.

Realistically, you already know who agrees and disagrees with you, because those that care to be known, will make a comment.

I don't personally need to remain anonymous, I couldn't care less. If I feel something is worth commenting on, I do so. If I disagree with a comment, but don't feel the need to comment, then I simply hit disagree...or agree if the reverse is true.

The reason it isn't better is because while you may not "retaliate" by spamming PM's or whatever, there are those who will. That's why I like the way it's done because it allows the user to decide how far they want to take it.

Anyhow, to use your example, if someone says they hate Mexicans, and gets agrees, yes it adds toxicity, but at what point does seeing who feels that way make it a better place? I think you have too much faith in the human race to expect people on the internet to care just because their screen name now appears on the agrees or disagrees of certain comments.

In the same vein, again, why do we need to know who disagrees with undisputed facts? We all know there are ignorant people out there, and some who won't accept facts if it goes against their own viewpoint or agenda.

Here's the thing about the agree/disagree system. It is a basic way to say you either agree or disagree with the comment. It doesn't go far enough to say why you agree or disagree with the comment...whether it's the facts presented, or the tone it was presented in. that's what the comments are for, and if people care to really address such a comment, they are free to do so, assuming they have the bubbles to do so.

I guess my biggest overall question is...why do people need to know? And do you think that it would be better overall given how contemptable individuals within the community can be towards those who don't agree with their stance.

[nicksetzer1]

@rain who are these people that are going to spam the thousands of people that place votes in every comment section? What would make people more inspired to send a message as opposed to someone making a comment?

You are just spouting a negative that would never happen. Gamespot has the ability to see votes, IGN used to, and plenty of other sites. Note a single time did I receive a message for a vote, because it doesn't happen. You are creating a false concern that would maybe happen 3 times out of 50,000. While we are at it should we also make comments anonymous too? so that people don't message you in reference to them? Or do you only take responsibility for what you write and not for what you are claiming to agree with?

[rainslacker]

I don't know who they are. But it will happen. You may be more reasonable, and the vast majority of people are reasonable, but it only takes a few to aggravate the majority. On a site with thousands of daily users, the chance that 2-3 are going to be annoying a**hats is pretty high. It's the internet, and I know you know it happens.

As far as the conversation, and how it progresses, wouldn't it be better if the remained in the comment section? I know I've had good PM conversations with people based on comments I've made, or someone else made, and more often than not they have a completely different feel than the actual comments section. Overall though, I'd rather the comments be open for all, because it is a discussion forum.

However, what can you do with an agree or disagree in terms of PM? PM them and ask why they disagree? OK. Well, if that person didn't care to comment, why would they want to reply to a PM? Not that they have to, but you are smart enough to know there are people who will harass others because of it, and I'll stand by my original stance that I think the annoyance won't be worth whatever gains you seem to think that will come from it.

I'm not trying to spout a negative, I'm trying to ask you why exactly you feel that it would be a benefit to the community. "Why not" is not a sufficient answer. Your actual blog gives a reason, but you make assumptions just like I did. Somehow you want to attack my assumptions without backing up your own.

I've run forums where people could see votes, and even who read the post, and I had to cut it out because moderation became a pain, and the forums were heavily moderated and mostly civil. We had nowhere near the number of users that N4G has. Just because you haven't receive a PM, or whatever, doesn't mean that many others wouldn't. I get harassing PM's just for my regular comments, and if I don't comment, I just prefer not to discuss it with the person, and I don't need them messaging me asking why I disagree.

My concern is valid, however, it's not really the concept that I'm trying to dissuade, I'm just asking for specifics on why you feel it would be a better system. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not suggesting that the entire forum be completely anonymous, we get what we need out of screen names alone. Never did I once say that the system needed to change, and you're going to the extreme saying that I even implied such a thing. I wasn't making a slippery slope argument, and if you wish to reply, it'd be nice if you'd stick to my comment instead of trying to discredit me by implying that I wanted anything that extreme.

[rainslacker]

People should take responsibility for their messages. That's what screen names are for. We can see who comments, and we can get to know people based off of that. People don't have to take responsibility for what they agree or disagree with. That's their own personal prerogative to agree or disagree, and in this case, I feel that the system is set up to allow people to do that with anonymity, and it's fine for what it is, because again, it allows people to determine their own level of interaction from someone who does nothing, someone who puts their vote to the consensus, those who actively engage in commentary, up to those who go out and find stuff to post on N4G. The agree/disagree system neither hurts nor helps anyone. At best, it's just a way to go back and look at your comments to see how the people who read your comment feel about what you wrote. What you do with it after that can be either nothing, or to re-evaluate your stance to decide if you were in the right/wrong. I know when I get a lot of disagrees, I look at what I said, and see if maybe I was wrong factually, or came across the wrong way, or whatever. If I have a concern about it, I'll ask in a reply to my original comment.

Here's some food for thought.

I disagree with about half your comments. The other half I either agree or have no stance on.

So when I disagree with you, and don't leave a comment, it's because I've already had the conversation with you. On occassion, I'll feel like having it again, but other times, I just click my vote and move on.

At this point, you already likely know my stance, give our prior discussions, so how would seeing my name there on the disagree list serve any purpose except to subconsciously make it seem like I disagree with you a lot?

Later, if I try to have a rational discussion with you about something I feel is an interesting topic, aren't you automatically going to be on the defensive...much like you are right now, just because most of my comments to you are contrary to your own arguments?

Now multiply this over hundreds or thousands of users, and it just gets to the point where you remember the negative people, and can't have a logical discussion because you think people are out to get you.

I think overall, you often make good arguments. Sometimes I feel they're wrong in some way. Even if you tend to be one sided, you do at least try to back up your arguments, but there are times when you seem to take arguments as an attack. I won't deny that I have said some pretty harsh things in reply to you, but I do so openly for everyone to see. I don't need to hide behind the agree or disagree votes, because I am capable of expressing myself in comments. I don't hate you, nor do I seek out confrontation with you, I just respond to arguments where I feel that I can either refute or on occasion enforce what you way by adding in some details, or something.

[SilentNegotiator]

The agree/disagree system works fine (you're simply upset that people disagree with you and can't fathom that you might be wrong). It has no real effect on anything other than displaying where the community agrees or disagrees with a comment made; it discourages people from spamming for comment #1, #2, #3, etc just to make it look like the gaming community agrees with something that person/group thinks.

Also, the bubbles work in the favor of reasonable users of all creeds and it's a shame to see it on the chopping block. We don't need perfect equity of commenting power in a community like this; the comments sections are one step above an unregulated forum and removing bubbles with drop it down to just that.

[SilentNegotiator]

*Not entirely unregulated, but without any balances. I'm not trying to knock the moderation on this site.

[iceman06]

I fully agree. All it takes is for you, the commenter, to understand this. Simply put, not everybody will agree with what you say (regardless of agenda). Thus, at some point, you are bound to get disagrees. Understand that most of us are biased in some shape or form. It's the WAY that we express it, whether through true discourse or out and out trolling, that should effect the bubble count.
Hell, I remember the OPEN ZONE of the past. That was the troll zone for sure. People who were banished to that zone did nothing but troll...simply because there was no real dialog going on there anyway. It could get entertaining from time to time, but was mostly like a "time out" zone.

[Tonykid]

There should be changes I hate when I go against an article I get disagree and no one replies.

[Germany7]

Get disagrees it's not the end of the world, the most important it's to express your opinion, if someone disagrees, move on, not a big deal.

[Sciurus_vulgaris]

You can state facts (like specs ) and get disagrees. The problem with the bubble system/ agree and disagree system is that it can be easily controlled by people with biased opinions. A small number of aggressive users can ruin a comment section. Also people with multiple accounts can upvote their own comments to get bubbles or to spam disgrees or agrees on the comments of others.

[Stringerbell]

Pretty much. 2+2 does not always equal 4 on this site.

[Pandamobile]

If you're going to change the comment system and rating system, make it transparent. Merge the bubble and rating systems so that each post can be visibly marked with an Agree, Disagree, Funny, Dumb, Trolling and Immature rating.

Let people see who are rating them. Self-moderation doesn't work on a website that has the aggregate intelligence level of a kiddie pool.

[cl1983]

The agree/disagree has no effect on bubbles, and since bubbles will be gone those votes become irrelevant when the new site launches

[Pandamobile]

I didn't mean it like that. I meant offer more cosmetic ratings than just an Agree/Disagree option (but don't count that towards how much a user gets to say, as that system is fundamentally flawed).

I've always been a fan of the Garry's Mod (Facepunch) forum rating system where you can rate posts as Agree, Disagree, Funny, Winner, Zing, Informative, Friendly, Useful, Optimistic, Artistic, Late and Dumb. Each rating serves a purpose or takes on a connotation unique to the Facepunch forum, but I think a similar system could work on N4G.

Dumb ratings discourage well-meaning users from shit-posting while at the same time branding the dumb users in a visible way (which can discourage people from feeding trolls).

Funny ratings encourage witty responses and be used sarcastically when users post something so dumb that it's actually funny.

Informatives encourage helpful/insightful comments.

The rest are kind of self explanatory, but again these are purely cosmetic ratings and exist solely to encourage discussion and discourse.

[SilentNegotiator]

"Let people see who are rating them"

Awful idea that will lead to users being harassed over a single disagree because someone is salty that they got some disagrees or that a comment they agree with got disagrees.

Discourse would get worse, not better.

[Pandamobile]

Works just fine on other forums.

[TXIDarkAvenger]

I don't mind the agree/disagree system.

I'm just not a fan of the bubble system. Most of the time, if you're not saying what the hivemind is, then you will get bubbled down. Discussion is a big part of N4G IMO and the bubble system limits that discussion. It's almost impossible to get bubbles up once you go down too.

[rainslacker]

It's not really the hive mind, it's people who say things that are within the parameters of what someone can be bubbled up or down for. AFAIK the mods make the ultimate decision on if something is to be bubbled up or down, as I've seen myself voted with bubble up or downs with no effect on my bubbles.

I often go against what some people say in a thread, and can easily get lots of disagrees, and likely do get some down bubble votes, but I make my arguments with actual backed up reasons, and not just trolling comments.

I have my bad days, as anybody, and sometimes go to far, but I think if someone is mostly reasonable, even if they go against the "hive mind" then bubbles aren't really their problem.

I've looked at people that complain about bubbles, and go see what they get bubbled down for, and 99% of the time, those bubble downs are actually valid.

I dont think that the bubble system limits the discussion at all. If you look at the people that have lots of bubbles, or at least enough to make a few comments per discussion, they often make great comments that aren't trolling, and are fair and reasonable, yet no one replies to them. The most discussion on this site comes from people responding to the one bubble trolls, so if anything, the discussion...such as it is...is actually about what it always would be.

The only way to actually improve the discussion is to completely limit someone's ability to post...say they couldn't comment for a day or two after being bubbled down at one bubble, so maybe people would try a little harder to not act the way they do. I did something like this on forums I've run, and it works, but it's a ton of work for the moderators to keep up with, and this site is a lot more active than the forums I've run.

[Gazondaily]

I agree with this. Simply show who is agreeing/disagreeing.

[Blacklash93]

My main issue with it is the times where I get disagrees but no replies, leaving me wonder why people disagreed. A click is a pretty shallow and vague way to disagree.

It's not a big deal, but I wonder if there would have been a real discussion in those instances if the system didn't exist, since people would have to actually write something and explain their position in order to express disagreement.