Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Most of your comments on HN today have been extremely condescending. Is 'xwdv a parody account? (Genuine question.)





[flagged]


There is [transparency]: if you're being downmodded, you're either deemed as not contributing to the conversation, or people disagree with you enough to do so.

As per Paul Graham:

I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

Forcing users to publicly display their opinion on a person's comment would be negative for many reasons, especially on a site like HN, where many people choose to be eponymous.

Also, note: most of the comments on the first page of your profile seem to be in the black, which means they weren't controversial enough to receive many (if any) downvotes.


HN downvotes can be rather confounding still. Check here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21653015

I responded very matter-of-fact, pointing out that the sharp edges of Tesla's cybertruck are something that makes it more dangerous to pedestrians. I didn't add any flourish or snark or whatever and yet it went into the grey. That kind of voting behavior just gives me a giant question mark.. why would anyone be hostile to explanation via fact?

IMO any site with a voting system should attach a heavy cost to downvoting:

1. each downvote you do costs more - with a slow backoff timer

2. the more points you have, the more it costs to downvote

3. the more downvotes a comment has the more points it costs

This mirrors the real life cost in social interaction:

1. you can't constantly be negative to everyone

2. high status people can afford to do that more, but not infinitely

3. you can't pile on one person (or rather, with each person adding it nears the threshold of "wow, maybe that's enough, dude")

(Yes, I know, talking about voting vis-à-vis HN is discouraged, but it apparently does bother a rather large contingent of users)


Your answer was an answer to a question that wasn't being asked, and one that was obvious, at that. It seems reasonable that it was downmodded.

IMO any site with a voting system should attach a heavy cost to downvoting:

I think 'dang has already elaborated as to why this is a bad idea, but:

Hacker News depends on downmods for community moderation. Discouraging them would lower the quality of the site.

3. the more downvotes a comment has the more points it costs

Not to assume bad-faith, but this was a joke, wasn't it? A bad comment should be downmodded more, and users should not be penalized for that. Flagging, too, should happen if it's extremely bad.

This mirrors the real life cost in social interaction:

1. you can't constantly be negative to everyone

If a person is only posting negative content, it makes sense that they would get downmodded more often: active users of the site will often see these people's comments more than others. Should they get punished for keeping the quality of the site up? I don't think so. That seems unreasonable.

3. you can't pile on one person (or rather, with each person adding it nears the threshold of "wow, maybe that's enough, dude")

That's completely unreasonable: if a comment is bad, it should be downmodded.


> Your answer was an answer to a question that wasn't being asked, and one that was obvious, at that. It seems reasonable that it was downmodded.

> "Are trucks more likely to hit pedestrians? I was not aware of big vehicles being more dangerous."

Its pretty blindingly obvious what I answered.

> Hacker News depends on downmods for community moderation. Discouraging them would lower the quality of the site.

But attacking facts literally lowers the quality of the site

> Not to assume bad-faith, but this was a joke, wasn't it? A bad comment should be downmodded more, and users should not be penalized for that. Flagging, too, should happen if it's extremely bad.

And yet you also want to prevent echo chambers. So many people just blindly ram the downvote button on a grey comment. Or a comment that goes against one of the big names on HN, even if that comment is right.

Your responses to 2. and 3. (and 1. too) basically all come down to "downvoting is amazing, we need more of it!"

I don't really know how to respond to that. Are you completely oblivious to echo chamber effects..?

Edit: the fact that you downvoted this immediately only strengthens my point, dude.


If many of my comments are still black, despite having at least -4 down votes, then it can only mean I’m being targeted by select users.

I have some posts where it’s simply not clear why anyone would downvote it, and some of my downvoted comments spawned huge sub threads, so clearly not everyone thought they were downvote worthy.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: