Can we add that you shouldn't downmod someone simply because you don't agree with someone has to say? Downmods should be used when breaking a rule in the Guidelines.
The practical result of comment karms is in ordering comments, and if you always keep that perspective in mind when voting I believe the threads will be a lot more interesting.
For eg. opinions that you may strongly disagree with, but that you think anybody clicking the comment thread must read should be voted up so they appear higher.
Karma shouldn't be seen as keeping score on who is right or who is wrong, more about being on-topic and interesting.
I, at least, have different policies for "stupid" comments ("Ruby runs a hundred times faster than C!") and comments that present a valid viewpoint that is not mine ("Ruby is a cleaner language than C") - in fact, I'll upvote such comments if they are well-reasoned and on-topic. Of course, I'm not perfect.
I believe that MichaelApproved is reffering to the comments. You cannot flag comments below a certain karma threshold. Actually, I'm not sure if you can flag comments at all? Maybe someone with higher karma could shed some light on this?
Ah yes, I see it now, thank you. I still believe that the 'flag' option should only be used for spam and completely offtopic comments. This is because it 'hurts' more (with regards to your karma) when your comment gets downvoted than when it gets flagged. AFAIK, flagging has no impact on karma, or am I wrong here? So, i see no reason why a person who merely has a different opinion than you should get punished more than the person who is actually breaking HN rules.
The ranking algorithm is much more subtle than simply counting karma. Some votes are worth more than others. The exact mechanism is secret, but I believe upvotes on replies to your own comment are counted differently to other people's votes for example, similarly to how one cannot downvote replies to ones own comments. This may obviously be wrong.
It is very possible that flags are invisibly counted and this also factors into the ranking algorithm.
But.. I wasn't talking about ranking here. I'm aware that flagging a comment probably pushes it further down the thread, but as far as I know, it has no impact on karma, right?
No, not as as far as I know. The reason I was talking about ranking is because that is the only real outcome of karma.
Obviously karma is publicly displayed, but posting just for the dopamine buzz of numbers ticking up should surely be discouraged. That's what WoW is for. Or even better, the gym :)
I know pg said that it's ok, but as my own personal rule, I've decided to go against this. I'm using the downvote only when somebody is actually wrong about something, not simply because I disagree with him/her.
The reason for this is because, even though I might disagree with somebody regarding a certain topic, I may very well learn something new from this person, and, why not, even change my previous views on the subject. In that case, his comment was valuable and helpful, and in my opinion, should be displayed even more prominently instead of being downvoted.
EDIT: One more thing occured to me just now: The reason why upvoting/downvoting shouldn't be used to express agreement/disagreement is because it promotes writing comments that appeal to the general public, disregarding if they are actually right or not. This leads to writing comments that you know people will like, which makes commenting on some topic a sort of a popularity contest. In the end, we will have lots of comments that say what we want to hear, not what we (maybe) should hear.
Perhaps I didn't phrase this as best as I could right now but hopefully the message got through.
I agree. Voting should be based on the quality of the contribution, not how closely it aligns with your own views.
Exceptions should be made when someone is presenting provably false information, but then a reply with counter-evidence is always preferable to a downvote. Downvoting without a reply is IMO only really appropriate for content-free comments that add nothing.
For instance, this is the perfect case for downvote. I strongly agree with the content - individual opinions here are mostly irrelevant - pg is the benevolent dictator and his opinions matter, not ours and he stated already that downvoting as a sign of disagreement is OK.
However, I prefer to disagree adding to the discussion.
I am downvoting you not because I disagree with you but because your statement was somewhat troll-ish. Don't take it personally. We should be nice to each other and disagree in a civil way.
Hey no problem. I agree that the idea is to keep the discussion civil. I didn't mean for my statement to be troll-ish but I can see how it could be seen that way. But the downvote doesn't matter to me personally. I sprinkle up and down votes liberally as the mood strikes and I expect others to do the same. I don't think one needs to deeply think about each vote.
I disagree with the Edit. People are free to vote comments up and down (with sufficient karma) for any reason whatsoever, and that is a good thing, i.e. downvoting a comment with which one disagrees is often healthier for the community than arguing a partisan issue (e.g. Erlang v Scala, Jobs v Gates, Briefs v Boxers) or repeating a counter-position described elsewhere.
That's tricky. Let's say we upvote "valuable" comments not just merely those that we agree with. The problem is, that we will see comments fitting with our own views as valuable.
The same problem is with comments we don't agree with.
So honestly, upvotes are just as much about agreement as they are about value in many cases. Because of that I think downvoting comment simply as the sign of disagreement is OK, if even for the sake of symmetry. You don't expect your car to turn to the left when you turn the steering wheel to the left, but slow down, when you turn it to the right.
If you click up-arrow to express agreement, you may click down-arrow to express disagreement.
I do sometimes upvote comments even if I don't agree with them, but I cannot remember downvoting a comment I do agree with.
Which is different from baiting. If you say "I know this is going to be downmodded" you're saying that you realize you are taking a contrary opinion. If you say "Downvote me all you want, you bastards, I'm still telling you the truth whether you like it or not" you're baiting.
It's an important social skill to acknowledge that something you're saying might be offensive. Lots of times I realize that I'm being undiplomatic, but can't come up with the right words. A disclaimer like that can help keep the thread from descending into flames.
I disagree. For what I understood, downvoting should correspond to irrelevancy, not disagreement. So I would interpret this disclaimer as "I know that what I say is irrelevant , but..." - wait, why are you saying it then?
Nothing wrong with an "I know some people may find this offensive" disclaimer though.
I know this will be downvoted, but saying "I know this will be downvoted" still gets you points. At least, I catch myself thinking "I am stronger than groupthink" in response. Be honest: didn't you?
I agree that it can be genuinely appropriate, but let's not pretend it's not effective. ;-)
For exactly this reason, I have a policy of always downvoting comments that make such comments. Including yours; sorry. I wish enough other people had such a policy to make I-know-this-will-be-downvoted-but an unappealing option.
