

Ask HN: Downmodding protocol - scott_s

I have a policy of only downmodding posts that are not a part of legitimate discussion. This includes obvious trolls, but also any post where I don't think the post contributes anything, such as an ad-hominem attack.<p>I do not downmod a post just because I disagree with it. If I disagree with the post, but it's not an obvious troll or incendiary in any way, I leave it alone. I see downmodding as a means to keep discussions civil, not to show disapproval with a point of view.<p>In contrast, I upmod posts I agree with. This means that a single control - voting up or down - has an asymmetric meaning for me.<p>I don't think everyone follows this protocol, as I've seen posts that I feel are legitimate downmodded well past zero. I feel my policy is valid because downmodded posts diminish in readability - it's obvious to me the intention behind that is for downmodded posts to fall out from discussion.<p>What is your policy? Should we publish the accepted protocol (which is not necessarily mine) in the FAQ? I worry that even if my policy is is the intention, it's not intuitive to new members: most people expect symmetric meaning from a single control.
======
qhoxie
My policy is different than yours. I upmod for intelligent discussion and
downmod for your same reasons. I do not always agree with what I upmod.

I think that publishing a protocol is an interesting idea, but the entropy
afforded by the current system seems to work well for HN. If anything, I could
potentially see mentioning that people should probably not downmod just based
on personal opinions.

~~~
unalone
But people do get told that. They downvote anyway.

The problem is that the big Hacker News personality type is one that gets very
intent about arguments. I absolutely do. And when you're in an argument, even
if you think the response is intelligent and contributes there's a kneejerk
desire to downvote and hope that the hive mind will follow you and downvote.
I'll admit that I've done the same, on occasion: it's a very pervasive
mentality.

It helps not being able to downvote until you have a certain amount of karma:
it gives you a period of time during which you need to learn to respond
intelligently. But that isn't an entire fix to the problem. Thankfully, to
date it's still the uncommon thing to happen.

~~~
shutter
Right. I think it's notable that karma and downmodding seems to generally take
a back seat here. Very rarely have I seen something go -1 or worse that I
still consider useful or legit. Generally, HN seems to favor commenting over
downvoting, and that's good.

------
alecco
It is quite a dilemma. It depends on the number already voted. For example, if
a post I don't agree with is quite rational and has low votes I up-vote. But
if it already has some votes I leave it there... Unless it has a double digit
number and the other side is much lower, then sometimes I down-vote (and feel
almost guilty about it.)

Many times I agree with someone but their post is incomplete or has a part
that isn't good, then the replies tend to say the whole side is invalid
because of that... It's very hard for me to pick what to vote specially when
groupthink or fanboys back either side (yes, including my side.)

There isn't a perfect way without granularity on votes.

