4 ms·

Outside of the side discussion about weather PageRank is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, (which is directly related to the OT btw as per DH1) I haven't do

Outside of the side discussion about weather PageRank is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, (which is directly related to the OT btw as per DH1) I haven't downvoted amichail's other comments, even though I disagree with them, because they provoked a marginally interesting discussion on what does and what does not constitute an argumentum ad hominem. I did, however, downvote his comment on PageRank because, to me, it appeared to have been posted as a one-liner intended to make the author look witty without any regard to actual validity of the claim. To be brutally honest, I can go elsewhere if I want to hear or read people who want to sound witty and cool. I don't come to HN for posturing, I come for intelligent and insightful discussion. So, people can only post precisely one comment on a given topic in a thread or risk downvotes? That's the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever read. Redundancy is not a reason to downvote. Limiting people to only one comment would be ridiculous, yes. But downvoting excessive redundancy seems perfectly reasonable. If I state the same thing over and over in several comments, without adding anything useful to support, expand or modify my argument, then I'm just being loud and repetitive. That doesn't add any value and that's why I tend to downvote that stuff. Beating a dead horse falls into that same category, you know ;)

elblanco 17y ago
First, apologies for using the wrong "whether" prior. > I did, however, downvote his comment on PageRank because, to me, it appeared to have been posted as a one-liner intended to make the author look witty without any regard to actual validity of the claim. Which is surprising to me since PageRank is essentially an algorithm based on argument ad hominem (pages with a good reputation are better) and we all humbly accept that as being a reasonable thing to do. This questions the validity of tossing a concept like argument ad hominem into the rubbish bin of rhetorical devices. This is a both an interesting (at least to me) and unique spin on the perceptions of the fallacy in common usage. > But downvoting excessive redundancy seems perfectly reasonable. It would be, except by your definition and actions, you appear to consider any number of repetitions > 1 as redundant (please, correct me if I'm wrong and that number is really >2 ). I'm sorry, but you aren't the HN police, watching vigilantly for unnecessary redundancy, guideline violations and other such perceived infractions and policing as appropriate. > Beating a dead horse falls into that same category, you know Yes, I get that this is a reference to me and my particular grinding axe <bzzzzz!!!!!>. So long as people keep using the downvote unnecessarily and to the detriment of the discourse here, I'll keep happily grinding away. I've upvoted you for engagement. I don't mind that you used the downvote to express some kind of disapproval of a comment, what I mind is that it's provided with no commentary. Uncommented downvotes are not helpful or instructive and imho are a bit on the rude side. I'm using my upvote here to provide positive feedback that what you are doing right now, explaining your vote, is useful, interesting and drives discussion. It's also good form concerning arguing (as per the topic). :)

elblanco 17y ago

First, apologies for using the wrong "whether" prior. > I did, however, downvote his comment on PageRank because, to me, it appeared to have been posted as a one-liner intended to make the author look witty without any regard to actual validity of the claim. Which is surprising to me since PageRank is essentially an algorithm based on argument ad hominem (pages with a good reputation are better) and we all humbly accept that as being a reasonable thing to do. This questions the validity of tossing a concept like argument ad hominem into the rubbish bin of rhetorical devices. This is a both an interesting (at least to me) and unique spin on the perceptions of the fallacy in common usage. > But downvoting excessive redundancy seems perfectly reasonable. It would be, except by your definition and actions, you appear to consider any number of repetitions > 1 as redundant (please, correct me if I'm wrong and that number is really >2 ). I'm sorry, but you aren't the HN police, watching vigilantly for unnecessary redundancy, guideline violations and other such perceived infractions and policing as appropriate. > Beating a dead horse falls into that same category, you know Yes, I get that this is a reference to me and my particular grinding axe <bzzzzz!!!!!>. So long as people keep using the downvote unnecessarily and to the detriment of the discourse here, I'll keep happily grinding away. I've upvoted you for engagement. I don't mind that you used the downvote to express some kind of disapproval of a comment, what I mind is that it's provided with no commentary. Uncommented downvotes are not helpful or instructive and imho are a bit on the rude side. I'm using my upvote here to provide positive feedback that what you are doing right now, explaining your vote, is useful, interesting and drives discussion. It's also good form concerning arguing (as per the topic). :)