However, it can feel really irritating to get downvoted, especially if one doesn’t know why. It happens to all of us sometimes, and it’s perfectly acceptable to ask for an explanation.
Perhaps we have different ideas of what ‘rights’ and ‘trampling upon’ rights entail.
You have the right to comment about reasons for downvoting—no one will stop you and armed guards will not show up and beat you for it. I think it is a good thing that you have this right.
If I think we would be better off with fewer comments like that, I’m fully within my rights to downvote the comment; similarly, no one will stop me and armed guards will not show up and beat me for it. I think it is a good thing that I have this right.
I’m not sure in what sense you think there is a contradiction between those two things, or if we are just talking past each other.
I think you should be permitted to downvote as you please, but do note that literal armed guards are not necessary for there to be real problems with the protection of rights.
My implicit premise was that 1) violent people or 2) a person actually preventing your action are severally necessary for there to be real problems with the protection of rights. Is there a problem with that version?
In such a context, when someone speaks of the “right” to do X, that means the ability to do X without being punished (in whatever way is being discussed). Here, downvoting is the analogue of armed guards beating one up.
Responding by pointing out that a yet harsher form of punishment is not being imposed is not a legitimate move, IMHO.
You are all talking about this topic, and yet you regard me as weird??? That’s like the extrusion die asserting that the metal wire has a grey spectral component!
In such a context, when someone speaks of the “right” to do X, that means the ability to do X without being punished (in whatever way is being discussed). Here, downvoting is the analogue of armed guards beating one up.
Ah, I could see how you would see that as a contradiction, then.
In that case, for purposes of this discussion, I withdraw my support for your right to do that.
And since I intend to downvote any comment or post for any reason I see fit at the time, it follows that no one has the right to post any comment or post of any sort, by your definition, since they can reasonably expect to be ‘punished’ for it.
For the purposes of other discussions, I do not accept your definition of ‘right’, nor do I accept your framing of a downvote as a ‘punishment’ in the relevant sense. I will continue to do my very best to ensure that only the highest-quality content is shown to new users, and if you consider that ‘punishment’, that is irrelevant to me.
Here, downvoting is the analogue of armed guards beating one up.
Wouldn’t that analogue better apply to publicly and personally insulting the poster, targeting your verbal abuse at the very attributes that this community holds dear, deleting posts and threatening banning? Although I suppose your analogous scale could be extended in scope to include ‘imprisonment and torture without trial’.
On the topic of the immediate context I do hope that you consider thomblakes position and make an exception to your usual policy in his case. I imagine it would be extremely frustrating for you to treat others with what you consider to be respect and courtesy when you know that the recipient does not grant you the same right. It would jar with my preference for symmetry if I thought you didn’t feel free to implement a downvote friendly voting policy at least on a case by case basis. I wouldn’t consider you to be inconsistent, and definitely not hypocritical. I would consider you sane.
The proper reason to request clarification is in order to not make the mistake again—NOT as a defensive measure against some kind of imagined slight on your social status. Yes social status is a part of the reason for the karma system—but it is not something you have an inherent right to. Otherwise there would be no point to it!
Some good reasons to be downvoted: badly formed assertions, ambiguous statements, being confidently wrong, being belligerent, derailing the topic.
In this case your statement was a vague disagreement with the intuitively correct answer, with no supporting argument provided. That is just bad writing, and I would downvote it for so being. It does not imply that I think you have no real idea (something I have no grounds to take a position on), just that the specific comment did not communicate your idea effectively. You should value such feedback, as it will help you improve your writing skills,
The proper reason to request clarification is in order to not make the mistake again
I reject out of hand any proposed rule of propriety that stipulates people must pretend to be naive supplicants.
When people ask me for an explanation of a downvote I most certainly do not take it for granted that by so doing they are entering into my moral reality and willing to accept my interpretation of what is right and what is a ‘mistake’. If I choose to explain reasons for a downvote I also don’t expect them to henceforth conform to my will. They can choose to keep doing whatever annoying thing they were doing (there are plenty more downvotes where that one came from.)
There is more than one reason to ask for clarification for a downvote—even “I’m just kinda curious” is a valid reason. Sometimes votes just seem bizarre and not even Machiavellian reasoning helps explain the pattern. I don’t feel obliged to answer any such request but I do so if convenient. I certainly never begrudge others the opportunity to ask if they do so politely.
Yes social status is a part of the reason for the karma system—but it is not something you have an inherent right to. Otherwise there would be no point to it!
I reject out of hand any proposed rule of propriety that stipulates people must pretend to be naive supplicants.
I never said anything about pretending anything. I said if you request clarification, and don’t actually need clarification, you’re just making noise. Ideally you will be downvoted for that.
There is more than one reason to ask for clarification for a downvote—even “I’m just kinda curious” is a valid reason. Sometimes votes just seem bizarre and not even Machiavellian reasoning helps explain the pattern. I don’t feel obliged to answer any such request but I do so if convenient. I certainly never begrudge others the opportunity to ask if they do so politely.
Sure, but I still maintain that a request for clarification itself can be annoying and hence downvote worthy. I don’t think any comment is inherently protected or should be exempt from being downvoted.
Sure, but I still maintain that a request for clarification itself can be annoying and hence downvote worthy. I don’t think any comment is inherently protected or should be exempt from being downvoted.
I agree with you on these points. I downvote requests for clarification sometime—particularly if, say, the reason for the downvote is transparent or the flow conveys an attitude that jars with me. I certainly agree that people should be free to downvote freely whenever they please and for whatever reason they please—again, for me to presume otherwise would be a demand for naivety or dishonesty (typically both).
Feedback is valuable when it is informative, as the exchange with WrongBot turned out to be in the end.
Unfortunately, a downvote by itself will not typically be that informative. Sometimes it’s obvious why a comment was downvoted (in which case it doesn’t provide much information anyway); but in this case, I had no real idea, and it seemed plausible that it resulted from a misinterpretation of the comment. (As turned out to be the case.)
(Also, the slight to one’s social status represented by a downvote isn’t “imagined”; it’s tangible and numerical.)
In this case your statement was a vague disagreement with the intuitively correct answer, with no supporting argument provided. That is just bad writing, and I would downvote it for so being
The comment was a quick answer to a yes-no question posed to me by Eliezer. Would you have been more or less inclined to downvote it if I had written only “Yes”?
Unfortunately, a downvote by itself will not typically be that informative. Sometimes it’s obvious why a comment was downvoted (in which case it doesn’t provide much information anyway); but in this case, I had no real idea, and it seemed plausible that it resulted from a misinterpretation of the comment. (As turned out to be the case.)
Providing information isn’t the point of downvoting, it is a means of expressing social disapproval. (Perhaps that is information in a sense, but it is more complicated than just that.) The fact that they are being contrary to a social norm may or may not be obvious to the commenter, if not then it is new information. Regardless, the downvote is a signal to reexamine the comment and think about why it was not approved by over 50% of the readers who felt strongly enough to vote on it.
(Also, the slight to one’s social status represented by a downvote isn’t “imagined”; it’s tangible and numerical.)
Tangibility and significance are completely different matters. A penny might appear more solid than a dollar, but is far less worthy of consideration. You could ignore a minus-1 comment quite safely without people deciding (even momentarily) that you are a loser or some such. That you chose not to makes it look like you have an inflated view of how significant it is.
The comment was a quick answer to a yes-no question posed to me by Eliezer. Would you have been more or less inclined to downvote it if I had written only “Yes”?
Probably less, as I would then have simply felt like requesting clarification, or perhaps even thinking of a reason on my own. A bad argument (or one that sounds bad) is worse than no argument.
I have no problem with your right to inquire about a downvote; I will continue to exercise my right to downvote such requests without explanation.
I consider that a contradiction.
From the recent welcome post (emphasis added):
Perhaps we have different ideas of what ‘rights’ and ‘trampling upon’ rights entail.
You have the right to comment about reasons for downvoting—no one will stop you and armed guards will not show up and beat you for it. I think it is a good thing that you have this right.
If I think we would be better off with fewer comments like that, I’m fully within my rights to downvote the comment; similarly, no one will stop me and armed guards will not show up and beat me for it. I think it is a good thing that I have this right.
I’m not sure in what sense you think there is a contradiction between those two things, or if we are just talking past each other.
I think you should be permitted to downvote as you please, but do note that literal armed guards are not necessary for there to be real problems with the protection of rights.
My implicit premise was that 1) violent people or 2) a person actually preventing your action are severally necessary for there to be real problems with the protection of rights. Is there a problem with that version?
In such a context, when someone speaks of the “right” to do X, that means the ability to do X without being punished (in whatever way is being discussed). Here, downvoting is the analogue of armed guards beating one up.
Responding by pointing out that a yet harsher form of punishment is not being imposed is not a legitimate move, IMHO.
*reads through subthread*
You are all talking about this topic, and yet you regard me as weird??? That’s like the extrusion die asserting that the metal wire has a grey spectral component!
(if it could communicate, I mean)
It is unfortunate that I can only vote you up here once.
Ah, I could see how you would see that as a contradiction, then.
In that case, for purposes of this discussion, I withdraw my support for your right to do that.
And since I intend to downvote any comment or post for any reason I see fit at the time, it follows that no one has the right to post any comment or post of any sort, by your definition, since they can reasonably expect to be ‘punished’ for it.
For the purposes of other discussions, I do not accept your definition of ‘right’, nor do I accept your framing of a downvote as a ‘punishment’ in the relevant sense. I will continue to do my very best to ensure that only the highest-quality content is shown to new users, and if you consider that ‘punishment’, that is irrelevant to me.
I won’t bother trying any further to convince you here; but in general I will continue to ask that people behave in a less hostile manner.
Wouldn’t that analogue better apply to publicly and personally insulting the poster, targeting your verbal abuse at the very attributes that this community holds dear, deleting posts and threatening banning? Although I suppose your analogous scale could be extended in scope to include ‘imprisonment and torture without trial’.
On the topic of the immediate context I do hope that you consider thomblakes position and make an exception to your usual policy in his case. I imagine it would be extremely frustrating for you to treat others with what you consider to be respect and courtesy when you know that the recipient does not grant you the same right. It would jar with my preference for symmetry if I thought you didn’t feel free to implement a downvote friendly voting policy at least on a case by case basis. I wouldn’t consider you to be inconsistent, and definitely not hypocritical. I would consider you sane.
The proper reason to request clarification is in order to not make the mistake again—NOT as a defensive measure against some kind of imagined slight on your social status. Yes social status is a part of the reason for the karma system—but it is not something you have an inherent right to. Otherwise there would be no point to it!
Some good reasons to be downvoted: badly formed assertions, ambiguous statements, being confidently wrong, being belligerent, derailing the topic.
In this case your statement was a vague disagreement with the intuitively correct answer, with no supporting argument provided. That is just bad writing, and I would downvote it for so being. It does not imply that I think you have no real idea (something I have no grounds to take a position on), just that the specific comment did not communicate your idea effectively. You should value such feedback, as it will help you improve your writing skills,
I reject out of hand any proposed rule of propriety that stipulates people must pretend to be naive supplicants.
When people ask me for an explanation of a downvote I most certainly do not take it for granted that by so doing they are entering into my moral reality and willing to accept my interpretation of what is right and what is a ‘mistake’. If I choose to explain reasons for a downvote I also don’t expect them to henceforth conform to my will. They can choose to keep doing whatever annoying thing they were doing (there are plenty more downvotes where that one came from.)
There is more than one reason to ask for clarification for a downvote—even “I’m just kinda curious” is a valid reason. Sometimes votes just seem bizarre and not even Machiavellian reasoning helps explain the pattern. I don’t feel obliged to answer any such request but I do so if convenient. I certainly never begrudge others the opportunity to ask if they do so politely.
Not what Kompo was saying.
I never said anything about pretending anything. I said if you request clarification, and don’t actually need clarification, you’re just making noise. Ideally you will be downvoted for that.
Sure, but I still maintain that a request for clarification itself can be annoying and hence downvote worthy. I don’t think any comment is inherently protected or should be exempt from being downvoted.
I agree with you on these points. I downvote requests for clarification sometime—particularly if, say, the reason for the downvote is transparent or the flow conveys an attitude that jars with me. I certainly agree that people should be free to downvote freely whenever they please and for whatever reason they please—again, for me to presume otherwise would be a demand for naivety or dishonesty (typically both).
Feedback is valuable when it is informative, as the exchange with WrongBot turned out to be in the end.
Unfortunately, a downvote by itself will not typically be that informative. Sometimes it’s obvious why a comment was downvoted (in which case it doesn’t provide much information anyway); but in this case, I had no real idea, and it seemed plausible that it resulted from a misinterpretation of the comment. (As turned out to be the case.)
(Also, the slight to one’s social status represented by a downvote isn’t “imagined”; it’s tangible and numerical.)
The comment was a quick answer to a yes-no question posed to me by Eliezer. Would you have been more or less inclined to downvote it if I had written only “Yes”?
Providing information isn’t the point of downvoting, it is a means of expressing social disapproval. (Perhaps that is information in a sense, but it is more complicated than just that.) The fact that they are being contrary to a social norm may or may not be obvious to the commenter, if not then it is new information. Regardless, the downvote is a signal to reexamine the comment and think about why it was not approved by over 50% of the readers who felt strongly enough to vote on it.
Tangibility and significance are completely different matters. A penny might appear more solid than a dollar, but is far less worthy of consideration. You could ignore a minus-1 comment quite safely without people deciding (even momentarily) that you are a loser or some such. That you chose not to makes it look like you have an inflated view of how significant it is.
Probably less, as I would then have simply felt like requesting clarification, or perhaps even thinking of a reason on my own. A bad argument (or one that sounds bad) is worse than no argument.