3 ms·

>...this can often come off as passive-aggressive when it is used to present a view; that's not really an improvement. If you are stating a view, just state it:

>...this can often come off as passive-aggressive when it is used to present a view; that's not really an improvement. If you are stating a view, just state it: to make it nonconfrontational, don't be condescending to people who disagree, don't predict that you will be downvoted into oblivion or otherwise persecuted for posting it, and generally extend the same charity to the community that you would like them to extend to your viewpoint. Unfortunately this doesn't work. You still tend to get downvoted into oblivion. The problem is that if you poke holes in a dubious argument, you'll get downvoted simply because people disagree with you. There is no real way around this, and I've mostly given up on commenting except when I know I won't be downvoted. I don't really give a shit about karma, it's more the idea of rudeness/negativity behind people downvoting things that they disagree with -- even if you post a logical, well thought-out argument -- that I have a problem with.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Unfortunately this doesn't work. You still tend to get downvoted into oblivion. No, it does work; if it didn't, I wouldn't have more than 20K Karma, often with highly upvoted posts disagreeing with posts that are also upvoted (or at least not downvoted), including from people who are higher on the leaderboard. The idea that you get downvoted to oblivion simply for disagreeing with the majority regardless of quality on HN (whether it comes from people who describe the majority as politically right-libertarian or leftist, or pro-FSF, or those who describe it as pro-Apple, pro-Microsoft, pro-Google, or anti- any of those things -- and I've seen it from every possible side of all of those, except I don't think I've seen anyone accuse HN of having an anti-HN downvote-to-oblivion majority) is simply wrong. Depending on basically random factors (who is reading when) posts on controversial topics that make substantial points well may occasionally get early downvotes for disagreement, but usually that gets overwhelmed, or at least neutralized, by positive votes very quickly.
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  It's pretty consistent. See for example my recent comment on a Parkinson's treatment where I said "there's fuck all evidence that it works", mentioning the placebo effect and overhyped science, which has -2. Perhaps people are offended by the swear word (which I thought was appropriate in the circumstances)? Perhaps I need to write a whole spiel explaining the placebo effect so I don't get instantly downvoted (I don't really have the time for that)? This happens every time, and it's a little irritating. I had a quick look at your comments and didn't see any comments such as this. ("downvoted into oblivion" is perhaps an exaggeration. I'm talking about -2 or -3 votes for a comment).
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Yes, those were unfair downvotes. I'm guessing the shortness of your comment and the negativity without sources made a difference? But that's just a guess.
    - kazinator 11y ago
      That's how the site works. If thousands of users think nothing of your comment, but two downvote it, there you go: two downvotes. On HN, bland comments which attract no upvotes have to be spotlessly inoffensive to every imaginable mindset so that they survive the 24 hour "statute of limitations" for downvotes. ... keeping in mind that some people punish blandness itself with a downvote!
      - cpncrunch 11y ago
        Yes, that makes sense (and thanks for your other, longer explanation, kazinator). I still feel that downvotes should have an explanation attached, as there is some negativity expressed in downvoting, but I realise that probably isn't going to happen.
  - kazinator 11y ago
    The -2 means that a couple of people (out of an unknown number) didn't like something. For example, some people don't agree with you and think that it's never appropriate to use foul language. Most of the time you get downvotes on something, the number of downvotes is small. Only the cases where something is massively downvoted and flagged out of existence can be readily explained. Suppose 5000 people look at your posting and almost all of them agree that sometimes it is appropriate to swear, and your posting is one of those occasions: but two out of those 5000 don't agree, and downvote you. Well, there you go: you have the tacit support of 4998/5000 readers (just not enough to give you an upvote for it) and two downvotes. Being acceptable to the majority in some "common sense" way is not enough to spare your comment. Either your comment has to have appeal so that it attracts upvotes from a significant segment of the site readers who come across it, or, failing that, a comment which doesn't attract upvotes, has to avoid raising the ire of minorities. (Regarding the use "minorities": I'm using that here to denote absolutely any rare trait, background or world outlook whatsoever (where "rare" doesn't mean "odd" or "strange"); I am not specifically referring to "ethnic minorities".) For the above reasons, situations where a comment is reduced to 0, -1 or even -2 are not always easily explained, other than by the general remark that it is probably less than "spotlessly inoffensive". (Imagine the ways in which some element in the comment might rub someone somewhere the wrong way, and you have a halfway plausible explanation.) Only when some comment is massively flagged out of existence is there an obvious plausible explanation.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Unfortunately this doesn't work. You still tend to get downvoted into oblivion. No, it does work; if it didn't, I wouldn't have more than 20K Karma, often with highly upvoted posts disagreeing with posts that are also upvoted (or at least not downvoted), including from people who are higher on the leaderboard. The idea that you get downvoted to oblivion simply for disagreeing with the majority regardless of quality on HN (whether it comes from people who describe the majority as politically right-libertarian or leftist, or pro-FSF, or those who describe it as pro-Apple, pro-Microsoft, pro-Google, or anti- any of those things -- and I've seen it from every possible side of all of those, except I don't think I've seen anyone accuse HN of having an anti-HN downvote-to-oblivion majority) is simply wrong. Depending on basically random factors (who is reading when) posts on controversial topics that make substantial points well may occasionally get early downvotes for disagreement, but usually that gets overwhelmed, or at least neutralized, by positive votes very quickly.

cpncrunch 11y ago
It's pretty consistent. See for example my recent comment on a Parkinson's treatment where I said "there's fuck all evidence that it works", mentioning the placebo effect and overhyped science, which has -2. Perhaps people are offended by the swear word (which I thought was appropriate in the circumstances)? Perhaps I need to write a whole spiel explaining the placebo effect so I don't get instantly downvoted (I don't really have the time for that)? This happens every time, and it's a little irritating. I had a quick look at your comments and didn't see any comments such as this. ("downvoted into oblivion" is perhaps an exaggeration. I'm talking about -2 or -3 votes for a comment).
- DanBC 11y ago
  Yes, those were unfair downvotes. I'm guessing the shortness of your comment and the negativity without sources made a difference? But that's just a guess.
  - kazinator 11y ago
    That's how the site works. If thousands of users think nothing of your comment, but two downvote it, there you go: two downvotes. On HN, bland comments which attract no upvotes have to be spotlessly inoffensive to every imaginable mindset so that they survive the 24 hour "statute of limitations" for downvotes. ... keeping in mind that some people punish blandness itself with a downvote!
    - cpncrunch 11y ago
      Yes, that makes sense (and thanks for your other, longer explanation, kazinator). I still feel that downvotes should have an explanation attached, as there is some negativity expressed in downvoting, but I realise that probably isn't going to happen.
- kazinator 11y ago
  The -2 means that a couple of people (out of an unknown number) didn't like something. For example, some people don't agree with you and think that it's never appropriate to use foul language. Most of the time you get downvotes on something, the number of downvotes is small. Only the cases where something is massively downvoted and flagged out of existence can be readily explained. Suppose 5000 people look at your posting and almost all of them agree that sometimes it is appropriate to swear, and your posting is one of those occasions: but two out of those 5000 don't agree, and downvote you. Well, there you go: you have the tacit support of 4998/5000 readers (just not enough to give you an upvote for it) and two downvotes. Being acceptable to the majority in some "common sense" way is not enough to spare your comment. Either your comment has to have appeal so that it attracts upvotes from a significant segment of the site readers who come across it, or, failing that, a comment which doesn't attract upvotes, has to avoid raising the ire of minorities. (Regarding the use "minorities": I'm using that here to denote absolutely any rare trait, background or world outlook whatsoever (where "rare" doesn't mean "odd" or "strange"); I am not specifically referring to "ethnic minorities".) For the above reasons, situations where a comment is reduced to 0, -1 or even -2 are not always easily explained, other than by the general remark that it is probably less than "spotlessly inoffensive". (Imagine the ways in which some element in the comment might rub someone somewhere the wrong way, and you have a halfway plausible explanation.) Only when some comment is massively flagged out of existence is there an obvious plausible explanation.