I would guess that Randaly meant to cheekily respond to

What is the last digit of the string "3^^^3"?

in place of my actual question.

People weren't responding rationally to my comments, so I pointed out that those people were being dumb.

Listen to yourself.

I'm not interested in having arguments with you; you don't make that look like a remotely productive use of my time. I'm trying to point out the things you are saying that sound juvenile and cause people to downvote you; it seems to bother you, so maybe if you can figure out the pattern, you will stop saying those things.

Announcing that you are making a valid point does not add anything to a point, however valid it may or may not be.

Declaring unilaterally without support that people weren't responding "rationally", and then pointing out that this makes them "dumb", is not any kind of worthwhile behavior.

Yes, and I was wondering if someone would give an argument justifying that behavior or that utility assessment rather than simply taking that behavior as a given "law".

I would like warranted arguments as to what was wrong with my comments. I am not asking for arguments that explain the response of the commenters or even one that mentions the reasons they have for downvoting, I'm asking for arguments that justify that behavior and that warrant those reasons. Without those arguments the community appears to be acting very irrationally on a fairly wide scale, which is concerning. No one has provided those arguments as of yet, so I am concerned.

Some people seem to be confusing my complaints with "I don't want to receive bad karma" and then they advise me on ways to make other people like my comments better. But that is not my complaint or my goal, my complaint is that I am receiving bad karma for no good reason and my goal is to get people to recognize this. I'm not really interested in being popular on this site, I'm interested in pointing out the lack of justification for my unpopularity, thus drawing attention to the possibly dangerous implications that this has for the community. The confusion between the two goals is natural but it is entirely mistaken.

I did not downvote the "complaint list" comment until it had grown quite large.

I'm trying to understand your reasoning here, and failing. Do you downvote controversial things often? Are you upset with the quality of my comments, or with the quality of all of the comments that followed? Why does it make sense to downvote simply because one of my comments drew lots of attention and anger?

To me, this does not make sense. Please explicitly state your rationale.

I think your characterization of your "complaint" comment is inaccurate

In what possible sense was the characterization inaccurate? I characterized it as a criticism of the negative karma I received. To me, it seems to quite clearly be exactly that. Other commenters also have been responding to it as though it was a criticism of the negative karma I received, that's why some of them mentioned that they downvote comments about karma and why I tried to engage them in a discussion on the merits of criticizing flawed feedback.

However, your response was not useful to you for your expressed purpose of eliciting clarification on feedback.

If I ask for clarification repeatedly and do not receive clarification, that is not my fault. Additionally, I may yet end up receiving actual clarification. Moreover, the lack of clarification also suits my purposes, because it goes a long way towards supporting the possibility that of the dozen or so commenters voting in this thread, none of them have any real justification for their votes.

But, do you have a suggestion as to what might be better at eliciting clarification?

Or are you just trying to seem Reasonable?

or to me

This is nonfalsifiable, and you're getting something out of this conversation or else you'd leave.

or (apparently) the LW-emergent-consciousness for contributing to valuable discussion.

I don't believe this is a relevant metric, my entire point is that their evaluation process is flawed.

EDIT: Moreover, new proof. I've already clearly demonstrated that I don't respond to karma incentives by shutting up, the fact that people keep giving me bad karma despite my obvious immunity to their effects clearly demonstrates that the commenters and reputation people are primarily concerned not with stopping me from making new comments because of the supposed logical invalidity of my comments but instead are concerned with the social cohesion they feel when they use karma to reject my comments as wrong, regardless of the truth value of my comments.

Of particular note is your unwarranted confidence that people who disagree with you are "irrational" and "dumb". You did not have access to sufficient information to conclude this! In fact, if they were downvoting you because they expected your comment to lead to unproductive discussion, they were right.

I will change this believe if I see people change their behavior or give a good justification for giving my list comment -10 votes or if people answer the arguments which I have made in other places about the value of feedback about feedback. I have good reason to believe that LessWrong commenters are irrational because they are a subset of humans and knowing about biases does not make them go away. The fact that no justifications have been produced is also hugely relevant.

The fact that individuals can choose to sabotage the usefullness of a question does not make that question invalid.

More to the point, have you considered that you may have erred in this thread?

Have you considered that no matter what answer I give to this question people will perceive the answer as though it is a "no"? Does this question have any purpose other than making the end of your post sound better? Are you actually thinking that my answer to this question will matter in some way?

The answer is yes.

And, I've concluded that I was overconfident in my expectations that irrational individuals would concede their own irrationality within a community that values rationality. I should not have expected otherwise, there are stronger incentives within this community to avoid admitting defeat than there are in other communities because this community treats accuracy and objectivity as a sacred value.

However, I've also concluded that posting that question was still a good decision on an overall level because I still believe that individuals are perceiving the power of my arguments. Part of the reason that I perceive this is because of the scarcity of downvotes on the comments where I challenge commenters to provide me with evidence and those commenters fail. Another reason that I perceive this is because I have yet to see any objection to my list of comments which attacks it on its merits. A third reason is that I believe all of those arguments are objectively good. The final reason is that I have not seen any objections to my comments from any of the main posters on this site who strike me as extremely intelligent.

EDIT: I also just realized that I need to identify a new threshold at which I'm satisfied with stopping. My previous threshold was going to be the moment where someone stated that they believed my critique to be largely accurate, but given my above realization about how disincentives against conceding irrationality within a rationalist community are actually stronger, I no longer think that threshold will suit my purposes.