My post wasn’t about providing verbal feedback to the author. It was about writing comments that help create shared norms about what should be downvoted.
“I’m downvoting this comment because it argues against a strawman” is a way to promote the norm of voting down strawmen. Building a shared understanding about what sort of writing should be downvoted because it violates that norm is useful.
Wait. Are you thinking that this is necessary to ENCOURAGE more downvotes, or to EXPLAIN to newbies (or help them predict; same thing) why they get downvoted?
These are different outcomes, and likely need different solutions.
Neither. If you look at the Said/Duncan conflict, different established users have different beliefs about what the norms should be. Writing long posts about norms is one way to have a discussion that develops shared understanding about norms. Being explicit about why one casts votes in individual cases is another way to develop a shared understanding about norms.
Now I’m feeling bait-and-switched. The first benefit listed in the post is “It’s a great onboarding tool for new users to help them understand the site’s expectations and what sets it apart from other forums”, and many of the comments talk about new users. That’s a TOTALLY different issue than the Said/Duncan posting styles, which is going to take a nuanced and judgement-filled moderation/voting system, not a one-size-fits-all official guideline.
That’s the first benefit listed, but the second is:
It provided a recognized standard that both moderators and other users can point to and uphold, e.g. by pointing out instances where someone is failing to live up to one of the norms
Instead of having a fixed standard to point to, I think it’s better to naturally evolve norms and do that by people being explicit about their views when they vote.
My post wasn’t about providing verbal feedback to the author. It was about writing comments that help create shared norms about what should be downvoted.
“I’m downvoting this comment because it argues against a strawman” is a way to promote the norm of voting down strawmen. Building a shared understanding about what sort of writing should be downvoted because it violates that norm is useful.
Wait. Are you thinking that this is necessary to ENCOURAGE more downvotes, or to EXPLAIN to newbies (or help them predict; same thing) why they get downvoted?
These are different outcomes, and likely need different solutions.
Neither. If you look at the Said/Duncan conflict, different established users have different beliefs about what the norms should be. Writing long posts about norms is one way to have a discussion that develops shared understanding about norms. Being explicit about why one casts votes in individual cases is another way to develop a shared understanding about norms.
Now I’m feeling bait-and-switched. The first benefit listed in the post is “It’s a great onboarding tool for new users to help them understand the site’s expectations and what sets it apart from other forums”, and many of the comments talk about new users. That’s a TOTALLY different issue than the Said/Duncan posting styles, which is going to take a nuanced and judgement-filled moderation/voting system, not a one-size-fits-all official guideline.
That’s the first benefit listed, but the second is:
Instead of having a fixed standard to point to, I think it’s better to naturally evolve norms and do that by people being explicit about their views when they vote.