Well, a downvote implies that I didn’t like the post or comment for some reason, right? Maybe I think it’s wrong, or poorly written, or such things shouldn’t be posted to Less Wrong in the first place, etc.—all the usual stuff.
But comments that say such things are discouraged. You’re supposed to post “constructive” things, to not be “negative”, to not be “confrontational”, etc. I, personally, have gotten punishment by the moderation team, for… well, sometimes not even explaining downvotes, exactly, but even just writing comments in lieu of downvotes.
And just think of how your (and my!) preferred cultural norm interacts with the “author can ban commenters from their posts” feature! Suppose that someone writes a post, I downvote it, I try to write a comment that explains my downvote, but oops—I’ve been banned from the post! (Or, the explanatory comment gets me banned from the post. Because the author doesn’t want to experience negativity, you see.)
Indeed, it’s entirely possible to read someone’s post, agree with it, read the comments to that post, see some foolish and poorly-considered criticism of the OP, downvote that comment, try to write an explanation for the downvote—and find out that the OP has banned you from their posts. Oops!
The whole system, both technically and in terms of policy, is set up to shield authors from “negativity”, and allow them to avoid seeing harsh criticism. We know this, because the admins/mods have told us. Well, of course that ends up discouraging explanations of downvotes. How can it possibly not?
It has also been pointed out before that the asymmetry of voting and commenting is most of what enables vote-rings and other invisible manipulation on link aggregator websites. If entities are manipulating a site by leaving comments, then this is almost by definition visible. If entities are manipulating via voting but not commenting, then they are invisible except to possibly administrators with relatively high-powered analysis tools designed for network/graph analysis. For example, one could manipulate a site by registering many accounts and then steering by downvoting one type of comment and upvoting the opposite type. Anyone who sticks their head out with a good comment opposed to the manipulation gets punished (and depending on the site mechanics may in fact eventually be banned or lose voting powers etc), while counter-voters at least don’t suffer.
Well, a downvote implies that I didn’t like the post or comment for some reason, right? Maybe I think it’s wrong, or poorly written, or such things shouldn’t be posted to Less Wrong in the first place, etc.—all the usual stuff.
But comments that say such things are discouraged. You’re supposed to post “constructive” things, to not be “negative”, to not be “confrontational”, etc. I, personally, have gotten punishment by the moderation team, for… well, sometimes not even explaining downvotes, exactly, but even just writing comments in lieu of downvotes.
And just think of how your (and my!) preferred cultural norm interacts with the “author can ban commenters from their posts” feature! Suppose that someone writes a post, I downvote it, I try to write a comment that explains my downvote, but oops—I’ve been banned from the post! (Or, the explanatory comment gets me banned from the post. Because the author doesn’t want to experience negativity, you see.)
Indeed, it’s entirely possible to read someone’s post, agree with it, read the comments to that post, see some foolish and poorly-considered criticism of the OP, downvote that comment, try to write an explanation for the downvote—and find out that the OP has banned you from their posts. Oops!
The whole system, both technically and in terms of policy, is set up to shield authors from “negativity”, and allow them to avoid seeing harsh criticism. We know this, because the admins/mods have told us. Well, of course that ends up discouraging explanations of downvotes. How can it possibly not?
It has also been pointed out before that the asymmetry of voting and commenting is most of what enables vote-rings and other invisible manipulation on link aggregator websites. If entities are manipulating a site by leaving comments, then this is almost by definition visible. If entities are manipulating via voting but not commenting, then they are invisible except to possibly administrators with relatively high-powered analysis tools designed for network/graph analysis. For example, one could manipulate a site by registering many accounts and then steering by downvoting one type of comment and upvoting the opposite type. Anyone who sticks their head out with a good comment opposed to the manipulation gets punished (and depending on the site mechanics may in fact eventually be banned or lose voting powers etc), while counter-voters at least don’t suffer.