3 ms·

Damn it, I was all set to upvote you, and then you had to go attempt the reverse-psychology "I'm sure I'll be downvoted for this" ploy. Sorry, but that's an au

• codezero 12y ago
  Given the tone of the thread when I posted this, it felt necessary. Reactions on HN are truly stochastic and if what I said before the defensive comment wasn't meaningful enough for you to upvote then I'm glad you downvoted it, it only reinforces how reactionary people can be.
  • raldi 12y ago
    I liked your comment up until that point. See the last two items: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  • vacri 12y ago
    Complaining about or goading downvotes turns a comment into a soapboxing whine. It's a juvenile debating tactic where if the author gets modded up they claim victory because of assent, and if the author gets modded down, they also claim victory because "I called it, you all suck!". >it only reinforces how reactionary people can be You're calling raldi reactionary even though the downvote was not for your 'meaningful comment', but because you literally asked to be downvoted?
    • codezero 12y ago
      I didn't ask to be downvoted I expressed my expectations. I didn't force anyone. Also, I've since made an edit. Edit: on inspection of your profile you seem intimately aware of the gratuitous downvotes on HN. Why is pointing it out considered a faux pas? Why should we be goaded into not bringing it up?
      • DanBC 12y ago
        The guidelines ask you to not do it. People commenting are asking you to not do it. Saying thigs like "I expect I'll get downvoted for this" guarantees downvotes - but those votes are for that part of the comment and not for the rest of the comment. I've seen people say "I expect I'll get downvoted for this" but then say something bland and uncontroversial.
        • codezero 12y ago
          They say resist it, which is materially different from saying not to do it. Goading is another story entirely. I will add that in practice, adding this defensive layer has had the opposite effect, it has resulted in more compassionate voting, rather than more downvotes, on my comments, which reinforces why I did it here and have done it in the past, so I question why it's such a big deal, to me, the big deal is the fact that there is an expectation of surprise downvotes, that you can't expect a discussion without driveby negative feedback is a sign of a very toxic community. Since this is a point of contention, though, I'll try to resist in the future, but I still call out to anyone to ask of the community – why do you downvote so readily, rather than upvoting equally as readily? Check out the Wikipedia article for critical positivity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_positivity_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_positivity_ratio – there's no reason we can't make HN a positive environment.
          • vacri 12y ago
            why do you downvote so readily, rather than upvoting equally as readily? They don't. The vast majority of users have positive karma scores, including yourself. You just can't see positive votes for other users, as they're invisible. You're arguing from selection bias here. If you are interested in a higher quality conversation, then try out those guidelines. You may also want to find better links when you want to support your argument - that wiki page starts out "The critical positivity ratio ... is a largely discredited concept", and most of the article is spent arguing against it.
            • codezero 12y ago