= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Open thread, October 2011 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (308)
They don't get included in every non-exhaustive list. You will pleased to note that I just employed the latter criterion.
Uh.
You took it upon yourself to translate the downvotes paper-machine is getting into the most rude interpretation available... you're being quite generous to yourself when defending that as a "non-exhaustive list". Not sure if you think mass-downvoting me will make this look better.
My default interpretation of this blatant misrepresentation of the context is that you are being as disingenuous as you think you can get away with in order to make the person you are arguing with look bad. But it is probably better to dismiss that as paranoia and assume the conversation really did go completely over your head.
Either way the point is that comment karma really does convey useful information and that by denying that information with respect to negative votes paper-machine does himself a particular disservice. Not only does he lose out on understanding how people consider the comment, it necessitates people communicating with him overtly. Whether it be via body language or via 'karma', nonverbal communication allows us to avoid being overt and blunt when giving feedback - more pleasant and all round neater for everyone!
Two downvotes must be a record for the smallest "mass downvote" spree ever! It's almost like they were two independent votes for comments which combined condescension with muddled thinking in a way I really would prefer not to see.
I understood this from the start, and for the most part I agree. However, did you literally think that paper-machine was blind to the disapproval his comment generated, as expressed through the negative karma it received? That without your post, he would stare at the negative number next to his post and have no idea what it meant? It seems more like you were just being "clever" in pointing out the irony. This was especially apparent while your comment only had that first paragraph.
In the process, you may have attacked a straw man, since it's likely that paper-machine was talking about total karma, not single comment karma. Now, that other point would have been open to argument too, but this way you got to make him look like he walked into a punch...
More importantly to me, you certainly misrepresented the range of meanings that negative downvotes can have around here. This is what I objected to.
Why? Because it is valuable to me that LW comment votes often represent more sophisticated evaluations than "agree/disagree+STFU". It's an advantage over most other places on the Internet, something worth defending against the "bad money drives out good" tendency. And I feel that making it sound like a downvote basically means "shut up, I disagree with you" gives a wrong impression to future posters, both givers and receivers of comment votes.
EDIT: Okay, I see where we drove away in different directions. My whole objection is about your first response to paper-machine. If that "They do" in the next one was there from the start, I missed it, and misunderstood what the "non-exhausive list" referred to. Mea maxima.
Yes, it was. Your disagreement makes more sense in that case.
I think so too. Why didn't you say so in the first place?
At the time it didn't seem relevant to what I was thinking about. I downvoted paper's comment because, whether it referred to single-comment or total karma, I felt it was unhelpful as a response to ata's question.
I. Am. Talking. About. Your. First. Post.
One of the negative karma points was from me. It did not stand for "you're wrong" or "STFU". So it was misrepresented.