You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

STL comments on SIAI Fundraising - Less Wrong Discussion

59 [deleted] 26 April 2011 08:35AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (116)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 26 April 2011 04:24:47PM 6 points [-]

A policy of downvoting posts that you disagree with will, over time, generate a "Unison" culture, driving away / evaporatively cooling dissent.

What do you think downvotes are for? It's just a number, it's not an insult.

(Now, if you want to suggest that perhaps I shouldn't announce a downvote when replying with objections, perhaps I could be convinced of that. I think I'd appreciate a downvote-with-explanation more than a silent downvote.)

but you'd have 40k to make up the lost team productivity.

The man-month is mythical.

Comment author: endoself 26 April 2011 09:01:50PM 3 points [-]

What do you think downvotes are for? It's just a number, it's not an insult.

Downvotes are for maintaining the quality of the conversations, not expressing agreement or disagreement. No matter what someone's opinion is, as long as its incorrectness would not be made evident by reading the sequences, downvotes should only express disapproval of the quality of the argument, not the conclusion. In a case like this, no argument for the opinion that you disapprove of was made. Unless he refused to acknowledge the substance of your disagreement, which was not the case here, no downvote was warranted.