2 ms·

Chaotic Neutral! More seriously, I almost never downvote, when I do, it's mostly if it's outright offensive, either literally or intellectually, that is, not a

by dusted 5y ago

Chaotic Neutral! More seriously, I almost never downvote, when I do, it's mostly if it's outright offensive, either literally or intellectually, that is, not an argument that I disagree with as such, but one that I find offensively uninformed, self-deceptive or is nothing but value-signalling. That can include arguments that align with my own opinion [1]. 1. Contrived example: I may find a proposed law a bad idea because it limits freedom in socity. If someone else agreed that it was a bad idea, but argued it was because the law would be friendly to "some ethnic minority they dislike". I'd still downvote them for being idiots, (to be fair, it'd probably also make me reconsider my own position).

runnerup 5y ago
This is the same thing I try to do. I'm very bad at flagging/downvoting as much as I should. Most days I'll read 3,000 comments and not downvote a single one. I want to religiously downvote and flag every comment which breaks HN guidelines. Especially jokes which don't add context/perspective. examples of actual comments in the past 24 hours that I wish I had downvoted: > 2022 will finally be the year of Linux on the desktop! /s > So... fuzzy logic. Everything old is new again! Again! > piety contests have consequences > Top level commend: "in the fullness of time JAX might prove to be more important than either. don't give people fish, teach them how to catch fish and all that..." > wtf I love crypto now I'm looking for a more specific example but nearly every day I see an interesting article where there's one long comment chain which is just "textual memes", sort of a Markov-chain of pop culture references for internet nerds. There's no extractable commentary or perspective, but rather the purpose of the comments were for the commenters to have "participated" in their group activity. (Often it's a type of "Hello there, general Kenobi" call-and-response chain) Some pithy-one liners hold great insight. That's fairly rare but it does happen. Its certainly possible to creatively utilize a one-word reference to a larger topic to contextualize the discussion in a surprising way. But rehashing a cluster of xkcd comics as a form of commentary, for the 10-millionth time, seems to more often just lead to a "circle jerk" of comments. Its easy to ignore, but I fear that by not aggressively downvoting zero-value comments, we abdicate our responsibility as HN's "immune system"[0]. That attracts and grows more culture of low-value comments on HN. I would love if HN's collective moderation grew to be much stricter than it is now. To be clear - I don't want this to be applied to unpopular views that are constructively written. I just want us to remove low-effort drivel and reflexive (non)-responses. Also many of my own comments fail my own standards when I review them 24 hours later. I would greatly appreciate it if HN could give me quicker feedback when I post low-value comments, so that I may better raise my quality floor. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7590569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7590569

by dusted 5y ago

runnerup 5y ago

This is the same thing I try to do. I'm very bad at flagging/downvoting as much as I should. Most days I'll read 3,000 comments and not downvote a single one. I want to religiously downvote and flag every comment which breaks HN guidelines. Especially jokes which don't add context/perspective. examples of actual comments in the past 24 hours that I wish I had downvoted: > 2022 will finally be the year of Linux on the desktop! /s > So... fuzzy logic. Everything old is new again! Again! > piety contests have consequences > Top level commend: "in the fullness of time JAX might prove to be more important than either. don't give people fish, teach them how to catch fish and all that..." > wtf I love crypto now I'm looking for a more specific example but nearly every day I see an interesting article where there's one long comment chain which is just "textual memes", sort of a Markov-chain of pop culture references for internet nerds. There's no extractable commentary or perspective, but rather the purpose of the comments were for the commenters to have "participated" in their group activity. (Often it's a type of "Hello there, general Kenobi" call-and-response chain) Some pithy-one liners hold great insight. That's fairly rare but it does happen. Its certainly possible to creatively utilize a one-word reference to a larger topic to contextualize the discussion in a surprising way. But rehashing a cluster of xkcd comics as a form of commentary, for the 10-millionth time, seems to more often just lead to a "circle jerk" of comments. Its easy to ignore, but I fear that by not aggressively downvoting zero-value comments, we abdicate our responsibility as HN's "immune system"[0]. That attracts and grows more culture of low-value comments on HN. I would love if HN's collective moderation grew to be much stricter than it is now. To be clear - I don't want this to be applied to unpopular views that are constructively written. I just want us to remove low-effort drivel and reflexive (non)-responses. Also many of my own comments fail my own standards when I review them 24 hours later. I would greatly appreciate it if HN could give me quicker feedback when I post low-value comments, so that I may better raise my quality floor. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7590569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7590569