5 ms·

If you downvote somebody for mentioning downvotes in otherwise acceptable comment, you are a fool; please don't do this. Mentioning downvoting adds nothing to t

by js8 10y ago

If you downvote somebody for mentioning downvotes in otherwise acceptable comment, you are a fool; please don't do this. Mentioning downvoting adds nothing to the conversation, but it also doesn't subtract anything. (For the record, I think downvoting is a bad idea in general. Although GP kinda deserves it, because his comment is empirically untrue, as other comment stated.)

grzm 10y ago
"[mentioning downvoting] doesn't subtract anything" I disagree. It sets up the commenter as a martyr, and indicates they are commenting from an adversarial position. Thinking this, they're less likely to take the time to phrase their comment in a way that will invite further constructive discussion. It also encourages an "us versus them" mentality. People respond reflexively to phrasing. It takes extra effort to reflect and respond well. Taking care to limit language that short-circuits reflection is important to constructive, positive discussion.
- js8 10y ago
  "I disagree. It sets up the commenter as a martyr, and indicates they are commenting from an adversarial position." But why should I, as a responder or moderator, care? Imagine a comment with 10 statements, 9 are great points but 10th is logical fallacy (in our case, appeal to emotion). Should such comment be downvoted? I think NO, because each comment should be evaluated based on its merits, not its flaws. "Taking care to limit language that short-circuits reflection is important to constructive, positive discussion." If you, in the above example, just downvote without commenting, how can the author figure out what he did wrong? It's like a punishment without an explanation - a stupid, medieval idea.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I think we may be talking past each other. I understand you believe downvoting in general is a bad idea, in particular downvoting without also providing an explanation. Further, I think it's likely that you'd rather there be little or no downvoting at all, with all interaction happening via comments. That's a viewpoint I've heard others espouse as well, and that's a discussion that interests me, though not one I'm interested in having right now. In my initial comment, I've only described the voting behavior of some HN members, not expressed any opinion on it, in the hopes that the author can take that into account when commenting in the future. Separate from voting behavior, the HN guidelines specifically call out mentioning downvoting: Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or proclaim that you expect to get downvoted. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html My second comment is specifically in response to your assertion that mentioning downvoting is not detrimental to the conversation. You've continued to discuss downvoting mentioning downvoting, while apparently missing that I've been doing exactly as you recommend: commenting explicitly on what I believe the commenter has done wrong. Thank you for sharing more of your thoughts on whether to downvote and how you think comments should be evaluated. I'm purposely not addressing them as that's too large a discussion which will go too far afield (even more so than this has already gone), and as I mentioned above, not one I'm willing to have right now.
    - js8 10y ago
      > I think we may be talking past each other. Ah OK, I understand. I actually agree that mentioning downvoting matters for the reader (it's an irrelevant thing that takes away his time), but I don't think it should matter for people who choose to participate, either by replying or moderation. I also agree with the HN guidelines that you quoted, although of course without downvoting those wouldn't be neccessary. > I've been doing exactly as you recommend I appreciate that. > I'm purposely not addressing them as that's too large a discussion which will go too far afield That's fine, I agree it's offtopic. Unfortunately, HN doesn't seem to provide good forum for these matters. Even in general I think this is a hard to solve problem, how to avoid discussions to turn into irrelevancy, which can be given by fleeting nature of these discussions. I am thinking, maybe someone in the future will apply some NLP learning to automatically mark threads that become offtopic (and collapses them or moves them elsewhere); that could perhaps solve the problem for reader that downvoting intends to solve.
codeddesign 10y ago
Untrue based on what? You may not agree with him, but isn't that the point of the comment section - to comment on the subject. If everyone had the same thoughts, there would be no need for comments ;) His statement was "financial education rather than handouts". Considering more than 60% of american's are in non-mortgage debt, this is a fair statement for both sides. The rich are in debt as well as the poor. If the "wealthier" had less debt and more available "liquid" income, it's possible to easily promote a percentage of your available wealth to those that have less. Along with poorer-side, it's quite easy to spend thing's on stuff that will not help you out of your slump 5 years from now. There are a lot of people just don't have enough...but the majority of people are in debt, which causes them not to have enough. Either way, financial responsibility would dramatically increase the U.S. economy more than any job's package from the government (taxes increase, travel expenses increase, home buying increases...etc). Imagine if everyone in the U.S. drove a "beater" car and saved up to pay cash for their next car...imagine if you had no credit cards and everyone had to pay cash....a lot less debt, a lot more savings, a much greater economy, and the 1% would swindle down to 0.01%
- js8 10y ago
  "You may not agree with him, but isn't that the point of the comment section - to comment on the subject." I said I agree with other comments that disagree with him - I don't see why I should comment when there is nothing more to add. However, your comment is a fair argument, so let me comment on it. "His statement was "financial education rather than handouts". Considering more than 60% of american's are in non-mortgage debt, this is a fair statement for both sides." This misses the fact that many people do borrow because they are poor. In the U.S., IIRC, biggest cause of bankruptcy is medical care. And as was already pointed out, these problems are solvable with a good social safety network (as we empirically know from other countries). On the other hand, there is also financial responsibility of the lenders, or rather, lack of it. Perhaps we should start educating them? However, that misses the big point. Debt slavery is a very real thing - for many lenders, it is convenient that people are in debt. If you think many people go in debt because they are financially illiterate, you are the one who is ignorant about the world. Of course they often know it - they just don't have a better choice. It's just like people who go to fight in wars - of course they know they can die. And regarding the economy, if you successfully teach people in debt how to save, you are going to have a recession due to debt deleveraging, but that's for another discussion. But in long term, I agree (if that's your point) that more equal society is better for economy.

by js8 10y ago

grzm 10y ago

"[mentioning downvoting] doesn't subtract anything" I disagree. It sets up the commenter as a martyr, and indicates they are commenting from an adversarial position. Thinking this, they're less likely to take the time to phrase their comment in a way that will invite further constructive discussion. It also encourages an "us versus them" mentality. People respond reflexively to phrasing. It takes extra effort to reflect and respond well. Taking care to limit language that short-circuits reflection is important to constructive, positive discussion.

js8 10y ago
"I disagree. It sets up the commenter as a martyr, and indicates they are commenting from an adversarial position." But why should I, as a responder or moderator, care? Imagine a comment with 10 statements, 9 are great points but 10th is logical fallacy (in our case, appeal to emotion). Should such comment be downvoted? I think NO, because each comment should be evaluated based on its merits, not its flaws. "Taking care to limit language that short-circuits reflection is important to constructive, positive discussion." If you, in the above example, just downvote without commenting, how can the author figure out what he did wrong? It's like a punishment without an explanation - a stupid, medieval idea.
- grzm 10y ago
  I think we may be talking past each other. I understand you believe downvoting in general is a bad idea, in particular downvoting without also providing an explanation. Further, I think it's likely that you'd rather there be little or no downvoting at all, with all interaction happening via comments. That's a viewpoint I've heard others espouse as well, and that's a discussion that interests me, though not one I'm interested in having right now. In my initial comment, I've only described the voting behavior of some HN members, not expressed any opinion on it, in the hopes that the author can take that into account when commenting in the future. Separate from voting behavior, the HN guidelines specifically call out mentioning downvoting: Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or proclaim that you expect to get downvoted. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html My second comment is specifically in response to your assertion that mentioning downvoting is not detrimental to the conversation. You've continued to discuss downvoting mentioning downvoting, while apparently missing that I've been doing exactly as you recommend: commenting explicitly on what I believe the commenter has done wrong. Thank you for sharing more of your thoughts on whether to downvote and how you think comments should be evaluated. I'm purposely not addressing them as that's too large a discussion which will go too far afield (even more so than this has already gone), and as I mentioned above, not one I'm willing to have right now.
  - js8 10y ago
    > I think we may be talking past each other. Ah OK, I understand. I actually agree that mentioning downvoting matters for the reader (it's an irrelevant thing that takes away his time), but I don't think it should matter for people who choose to participate, either by replying or moderation. I also agree with the HN guidelines that you quoted, although of course without downvoting those wouldn't be neccessary. > I've been doing exactly as you recommend I appreciate that. > I'm purposely not addressing them as that's too large a discussion which will go too far afield That's fine, I agree it's offtopic. Unfortunately, HN doesn't seem to provide good forum for these matters. Even in general I think this is a hard to solve problem, how to avoid discussions to turn into irrelevancy, which can be given by fleeting nature of these discussions. I am thinking, maybe someone in the future will apply some NLP learning to automatically mark threads that become offtopic (and collapses them or moves them elsewhere); that could perhaps solve the problem for reader that downvoting intends to solve.

codeddesign 10y ago

Untrue based on what? You may not agree with him, but isn't that the point of the comment section - to comment on the subject. If everyone had the same thoughts, there would be no need for comments ;) His statement was "financial education rather than handouts". Considering more than 60% of american's are in non-mortgage debt, this is a fair statement for both sides. The rich are in debt as well as the poor. If the "wealthier" had less debt and more available "liquid" income, it's possible to easily promote a percentage of your available wealth to those that have less. Along with poorer-side, it's quite easy to spend thing's on stuff that will not help you out of your slump 5 years from now. There are a lot of people just don't have enough...but the majority of people are in debt, which causes them not to have enough. Either way, financial responsibility would dramatically increase the U.S. economy more than any job's package from the government (taxes increase, travel expenses increase, home buying increases...etc). Imagine if everyone in the U.S. drove a "beater" car and saved up to pay cash for their next car...imagine if you had no credit cards and everyone had to pay cash....a lot less debt, a lot more savings, a much greater economy, and the 1% would swindle down to 0.01%

js8 10y ago
"You may not agree with him, but isn't that the point of the comment section - to comment on the subject." I said I agree with other comments that disagree with him - I don't see why I should comment when there is nothing more to add. However, your comment is a fair argument, so let me comment on it. "His statement was "financial education rather than handouts". Considering more than 60% of american's are in non-mortgage debt, this is a fair statement for both sides." This misses the fact that many people do borrow because they are poor. In the U.S., IIRC, biggest cause of bankruptcy is medical care. And as was already pointed out, these problems are solvable with a good social safety network (as we empirically know from other countries). On the other hand, there is also financial responsibility of the lenders, or rather, lack of it. Perhaps we should start educating them? However, that misses the big point. Debt slavery is a very real thing - for many lenders, it is convenient that people are in debt. If you think many people go in debt because they are financially illiterate, you are the one who is ignorant about the world. Of course they often know it - they just don't have a better choice. It's just like people who go to fight in wars - of course they know they can die. And regarding the economy, if you successfully teach people in debt how to save, you are going to have a recession due to debt deleveraging, but that's for another discussion. But in long term, I agree (if that's your point) that more equal society is better for economy.