> > That's an easy stance to take > Do you mean it's simplistic? I mean it's an easily justifiable take. You could call it simplistic, but I think that's not a

> > That's an easy stance to take > Do you mean it's simplistic? I mean it's an easily justifiable take. You could call it simplistic, but I think that's not an exact synonym for "lacks nuance" > I don't find it "easy" to be left with a low opinion of fellow posters. My meaning is that it's easy to take the stance that a downvote without a comment is never justifiable, but yet I think there are valid cases where it is, which is what I was getting at. > > statements that are very commonly posted by others > I wouldn't say that characterises my comments. I always try to add something original. I've only read the comment I'm replying to. I didn't go read your comment backlog and tailor my response to how I perceive your behavior. I'm sure your posts are just fine, after all the one I am replying to is a pretty good comment. And I don't see any signs of downvoting. EDIT: Oh, no it's been downvoted a bit, my bad. It didn't stop a discussion from happening though. I do want to clarify that I'm coming in here to discuss what you've posted, not speaking specifically about whether this post should be downvoted. It's probably somewhat unfair that the original post here is downvoted, but that's almost certainly because folks have the same opinion that I do, that it is in fact warranted to downvote without comment sometimes. And, by luck of me coming in here, I have satisfied your request about getting context on why you're being downvoted!! But to help out, I gave you an upvote :-) > > it's not exactly the responsibility of passers by > We disagree here. Yes it kind of is. Nobody is compelled to vote. It's much better to get a reply, even a negative one, than a vote either up or down. The only reason it even matters is that I learned downvoted posts become invisible, which seems like a form of censorship, no? Censorship comes from a position of power. No one user on HN has more power than you, save for dang, who is known to wield it very well. It's kind of strange to declare the ability for the population to influence what words sit at the top as censorship. After all, downvotes have the inverse effect of pushing the more interesting stuff up, while acting as a way for the community to temper itself, and act as a signal that you're going to have to do better to prove your point than what you did. Because of HN's format, I do not want to have to see 400 comments saying "I do not agree." with no further commentary. If we eliminate the downvote, then that will be what happens. And the reason I'm certain it will happen is the same reason that I mention the disparity between the desire for holders of unpopular opinions to flood spaces with those opinions and the relative lack of energy of people to continuously fight those unpopular opinions. If 10 people post the same uninformed comment, I can certainly respond to every one clarifying their ignorance, but a lot of people are going to read that comment and miss my clarification. I do think it's important for the rationale for downvoting to be present, but I just contend that there is not an absolute that says we should simply put a small asterisk next to each thing that is unreasonable and hope that everyone reads the full context. > > I don't think it's fair to measure how just, intellectual, or morally correct the two sides of the disagreement are just by how willing they are to expend energy arguing about it. > Now we're getting interesting. I strongly believe in the principles of disputation - that is to say - conversations always have a deeper "Socratic/Hegelian" purpose to learn and change, not to "win" or "sway" some barometer. That's why I make the effort with people. I suppose I consider it good manners to reciprocate, and in my mind I equate voting but not commenting with laziness. Therefore I do make a moral judgement about that I feel comfortable with. This is all fair, and is very true in a Socratic dialog, but that's not the nature of online forums, let alone a tree structure like HN. This is not a 1:1 ordered structured dialog. If I want my opinion to have more sway, I can post it as a leaf node on every part of the tree. If I do that, should I expect you to repeat your rationale for why I'm wrong on each leaf post I make? And on top of that, ignorance is often more common than enlightenment. Especially for heated or otherwise impactful stories, it is very common for the same argument to be posted by tens or hundreds of independent commenters, all in good faith. While yes, in an ideal world each one of them deserves to know why they are being downvoted, it's also expected of them to read at least some other parts of the comment tree, where arguments similar or identical to theirs have indeed been responded to with Socratic fervor already, several hours ago. > The frustration comes from putting the effort and thought into a comment, only to see it hidden from others by a minority that dislike what is being said. This gets at a strategic thing that some don't realize about HN: you do not, and in many cases probably should not, post at the top level. Posts at the top level which are at the top of the feed usually have been there for awhile-- they have a gravity by way of having a lot of points. Often, there will be whole pages of subreplies on them. You don't need a single downvote for your toplevel comment to be at the top for 1 minute and immediately drop to page 3. Instead, discuss on the leafs, or make your opinion known somewhere else in the tree. When you do that, your comment can only drop to the bottom of that tree node unless it is killed by flag or downvote. If you have a 1 point comment that gets no activity, it will just sit in that tree. Furthermore, if you approach writing your comments gracefully, in a way that gives other participants the benefit of the doubt, and has humility in case your wrong, it is exceedingly rare to be downvoted to death. In my entire time on HN across thousands of posts, it has happened to me maybe once or twice-- and I am not always as agreeable as I'm being on this post. > only to see it hidden from others by a minority that dislike what is being said. I do also want to remind you that your comment points are a balance. If you have a 1, that can be 1+0-0 or 1+10-10. If 10 people like your comment and one person dislikes it, that's still 10 points. It is a balance system. > Like you I notice that after many days my most downvoted posts fly back up to very high values. But that's irrelevant because my focus on that subject has moved on and the opportunity was lost to interact with others because a comment was hidden from them. The vanity of "overall score" doesn't figure in my reasoning at all. Yeah that's true when it's a top level comment. Again I advise only doing top level comments strategically. When it's a leaf node, shown as one of 3 comments in reply to something else, you are not losing anything-- only when a comment becomes [dead] is it removed from the tree. And I for one will still see your comment, because I have showdead turned on. I recommend it! Truly TOS breaking comments are removed anyway, and it's a good way to understand what the overall community will push out of the tree.