I see the heuristic “don’t downvote in an argument you’re participating in” as a good one for the kind of corrupted hardware we’re running on (as in the Ends Don’t Justify Means (Among Humans) post). Given that I could gain or lose (perceived) status in an argument, I’m apt to be especially biased about the quality of people’s comments in said argument. I value the prospect of providing more fair and accurate karma feedback in general, even if that means going against object-level intuitions in particular cases.
Usually, if I’m arguing with someone, and their reply is really as bad as it looks to me, several others will see that and downvote it anyway. If this happens and it hits −4 or so, then I feel justified in marking my opinion. In all other cases, I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt.
Do you not think there is sometimes reason to downvote a debating opponent?
I see the heuristic “don’t downvote in an argument you’re participating in” as a good one for the kind of corrupted hardware we’re running on (as in the Ends Don’t Justify Means (Among Humans) post). Given that I could gain or lose (perceived) status in an argument, I’m apt to be especially biased about the quality of people’s comments in said argument. I value the prospect of providing more fair and accurate karma feedback in general, even if that means going against object-level intuitions in particular cases.
Usually, if I’m arguing with someone, and their reply is really as bad as it looks to me, several others will see that and downvote it anyway. If this happens and it hits −4 or so, then I feel justified in marking my opinion. In all other cases, I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt.