5 ms·

>It is because you do not comment according to the guidelines, which encourage people to start conversation with reasoning Not strictly. The guidelines encoura

>It is because you do not comment according to the guidelines, which encourage people to start conversation with reasoning Not strictly. The guidelines encourage people to start conversation with reasoning, but also encourage people to downvote for disagreeing. So, there's some dissonance in there as it says, effectively: "make well-reasoned arguments with which everyone can agree."

odabaxok 10y ago
We are going OT here, but one last comment in this thread to clarify what I meant. Putting a comment saying just "Just another vile article", without any thoughts about why it is vile, is just completely against the guidelines (from the points mentioned in my previous comment). Even if you agree with its content or not. Also, I do not believe the guidelines encourage people to down-vote for disagreeing (or at-least from my understanding). It is just in our nature and the consequence of the fact, that there is a down-vote button. (I have never tried it, still under 500 karma.. :) )
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  >Putting a comment saying just "Just another vile article", without any thoughts about why it is vile I agree that it doesn't add to the discussion, which might be a good reason for downvoting (i.e. as a form of "quality control"). OTOH, if you happen to agree with the statement, then the ethos is that it's cool to upvote it on that basis alone. Yet, it still adds no more to the discussion. My overall point is that agreement/disagreement as a basis for surfacing (or submerging) people's comments/ideas is a poor choice in either direction, if it's stimulating, challenging discussion we want. >I have never tried it, still under 500 karma.. Meh. It's overrated. Can't even remember the last time I downvoted a comment (as you might've guessed) :)
rootlocus 10y ago
The guidelines aren't there to help you get upvotes. Moreover, it says nothing about how / why to downvote, much less encourage people to do so. The fact that it's ok to downvote when disagreeing is something that pg once wrote in a comment (don't have the link).
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  A pg dictum is a de facto "guideline" here. That's pretty well understood. Not sure why you think it's valuable to try parsing a distinction. I don't think anyone is suggesting that guidelines are designed to help people get upvotes. In fact, my comment wasn't about upvotes at all, but how encouragement to downvote for disagreement undermines constructive discussion and contradicts the GP's guideline-citing assertion that well-constructed arguments are valued most.
  - rootlocus 10y ago
    > A pg dictum is a de facto "guideline" here. That's pretty well understood. Not sure why you think it's valuable to try parsing a distinction. Perhaps. However, since not everyone has read every comment pg ever made, it's safe to say only what's written in the guidelines is supposed to be common knowledge and easily available for reference. > effectively: "make well-reasoned arguments with which everyone can agree." They don't say "make arguments with which everyone can agree". Not effectively or otherwise, that would stupid. They say (in your opinion) that you are encouraged to downvote what you don't agree with (I would substitute encouraged with allowed, but I can't make a reference to an authoritative source because it's not actually in the guidelines). It was your own deduction that you should make comments everyone agrees with (in order to avoid being downvoted / get more upvotes).
    - unclebucknasty 10y ago
      >it's safe to say only what's written in the guidelines is supposed to be common knowledge And, yet, you immediately trotted out the dictum on this thread, as have so many before you. I mean, c'mon. Stop it. It's common knowledge around here. >They don't say "make arguments with which everyone can agree" Greenlighting the use of downvotes to express disagreement does exactly this. Not even sure why you think there's an argument to be made otherwise. If you want your comment to be read, instead of literally faded into oblivion as the result of downvotes, then you'd better be sure it's somewhat in agreement with the community. >It was your own deduction... Sure was, and it didn't take much effort to deduce it. In fact, I would say no effort. It was just lying there to trip over. OTOH, the entirety of your argument seems to rest on the willful denial of the obvious.

odabaxok 10y ago

We are going OT here, but one last comment in this thread to clarify what I meant. Putting a comment saying just "Just another vile article", without any thoughts about why it is vile, is just completely against the guidelines (from the points mentioned in my previous comment). Even if you agree with its content or not. Also, I do not believe the guidelines encourage people to down-vote for disagreeing (or at-least from my understanding). It is just in our nature and the consequence of the fact, that there is a down-vote button. (I have never tried it, still under 500 karma.. :) )

unclebucknasty 10y ago
>Putting a comment saying just "Just another vile article", without any thoughts about why it is vile I agree that it doesn't add to the discussion, which might be a good reason for downvoting (i.e. as a form of "quality control"). OTOH, if you happen to agree with the statement, then the ethos is that it's cool to upvote it on that basis alone. Yet, it still adds no more to the discussion. My overall point is that agreement/disagreement as a basis for surfacing (or submerging) people's comments/ideas is a poor choice in either direction, if it's stimulating, challenging discussion we want. >I have never tried it, still under 500 karma.. Meh. It's overrated. Can't even remember the last time I downvoted a comment (as you might've guessed) :)

rootlocus 10y ago

The guidelines aren't there to help you get upvotes. Moreover, it says nothing about how / why to downvote, much less encourage people to do so. The fact that it's ok to downvote when disagreeing is something that pg once wrote in a comment (don't have the link).

unclebucknasty 10y ago
A pg dictum is a de facto "guideline" here. That's pretty well understood. Not sure why you think it's valuable to try parsing a distinction. I don't think anyone is suggesting that guidelines are designed to help people get upvotes. In fact, my comment wasn't about upvotes at all, but how encouragement to downvote for disagreement undermines constructive discussion and contradicts the GP's guideline-citing assertion that well-constructed arguments are valued most.
- rootlocus 10y ago
  > A pg dictum is a de facto "guideline" here. That's pretty well understood. Not sure why you think it's valuable to try parsing a distinction. Perhaps. However, since not everyone has read every comment pg ever made, it's safe to say only what's written in the guidelines is supposed to be common knowledge and easily available for reference. > effectively: "make well-reasoned arguments with which everyone can agree." They don't say "make arguments with which everyone can agree". Not effectively or otherwise, that would stupid. They say (in your opinion) that you are encouraged to downvote what you don't agree with (I would substitute encouraged with allowed, but I can't make a reference to an authoritative source because it's not actually in the guidelines). It was your own deduction that you should make comments everyone agrees with (in order to avoid being downvoted / get more upvotes).
  - unclebucknasty 10y ago
    >it's safe to say only what's written in the guidelines is supposed to be common knowledge And, yet, you immediately trotted out the dictum on this thread, as have so many before you. I mean, c'mon. Stop it. It's common knowledge around here. >They don't say "make arguments with which everyone can agree" Greenlighting the use of downvotes to express disagreement does exactly this. Not even sure why you think there's an argument to be made otherwise. If you want your comment to be read, instead of literally faded into oblivion as the result of downvotes, then you'd better be sure it's somewhat in agreement with the community. >It was your own deduction... Sure was, and it didn't take much effort to deduce it. In fact, I would say no effort. It was just lying there to trip over. OTOH, the entirety of your argument seems to rest on the willful denial of the obvious.