To shamelessly copy from a comment I left elsewhere:
I'll mod something up if it's on-topic, well thought-out, and I agree with it. I'll only mod something down if it's blatantly off topic and rude/trollish. If I simply don't agree with what they said, but they said it in useful way, I'll just leave it be.
I'm all about modding the people who post goatse links down into negative oblivion, but I think it kind of stifles discussion if you downmod simply because you don't happen to agree. Instead of dog-piling someone for a dissenting opinion, take the extra 30 seconds to write a response. It'll enrich the discussion.
And I'll add that I upmod comments that are below -1 if they aren't trollish. If that marginalizes me somehow, who cares. I'd rather people not get their karma destroyed just because they have a minority opinion. Go destroy trolls instead.
I mostly agree, except that I'll also downmod someone if they assert something that is false, heavily disputed, or sweepingly general. There is no use proliferating incorrect information, urban myths, faulty reports, or common stereotypes. Such a downmod, of course, would be accompanied by a correction, unless there already is one, in which case I'll upmod the correction.
Well, that's why I didn't say "blatantly false". There are often cases where someone has heard something so many times that they believe it's true (such as "Killing praying mantises is a crime in the US," or "Rice is no longer thrown at weddings because birds will explode," neither of which is true, or "Drinking bottled water is changing the Earth's climate," which is heavily disputed), and I would hesitate to call those people trolls. In such a case, a low karma on that comment and a quick rebuttal is certainly a fair response.
I think this is what has been the most damaging aspect of Reddit's growth. People don't see the up and down arrows as a measure of quality, they see them as a source of agreement.
Yes. The most frustrating thing about this site is getting downmodded (repeatedly) without any replies. If you don't agree, say so! Then maybe we can have an intelligent discourse. I have often made comments that are counter to the "groupthink" of the thread. Sometimes because I disagree, sometimes just to play devil's advocate to see where it leads. But always to learn and share.
If clicking the down arrow without replying becomes a trend, then no one will want to disagree. Then where will we be?
I go one step further - if someone writes an insightful, contrarian comment that I don't agree with, I'll upmod it for quality. For instance if someone brings up a real downside of startup life it usually gets attacked, but I'll vote it up if it is good.
Comments
To shamelessly copy from a comment I left elsewhere:
I'll mod something up if it's on-topic, well thought-out, and I agree with it. I'll only mod something down if it's blatantly off topic and rude/trollish. If I simply don't agree with what they said, but they said it in useful way, I'll just leave it be.
I'm all about modding the people who post goatse links down into negative oblivion, but I think it kind of stifles discussion if you downmod simply because you don't happen to agree. Instead of dog-piling someone for a dissenting opinion, take the extra 30 seconds to write a response. It'll enrich the discussion.
And I'll add that I upmod comments that are below -1 if they aren't trollish. If that marginalizes me somehow, who cares. I'd rather people not get their karma destroyed just because they have a minority opinion. Go destroy trolls instead.
I mostly agree, except that I'll also downmod someone if they assert something that is false, heavily disputed, or sweepingly general. There is no use proliferating incorrect information, urban myths, faulty reports, or common stereotypes. Such a downmod, of course, would be accompanied by a correction, unless there already is one, in which case I'll upmod the correction.
Oh I agree with that. I just group 'stating blatantly false things' and 'proliferating stereotypes' into the troll category.
Well, that's why I didn't say "blatantly false". There are often cases where someone has heard something so many times that they believe it's true (such as "Killing praying mantises is a crime in the US," or "Rice is no longer thrown at weddings because birds will explode," neither of which is true, or "Drinking bottled water is changing the Earth's climate," which is heavily disputed), and I would hesitate to call those people trolls. In such a case, a low karma on that comment and a quick rebuttal is certainly a fair response.
I follow exactly your model.
Downmodding to express disagreement will result in unhealthy group-think.
I think this is what has been the most damaging aspect of Reddit's growth. People don't see the up and down arrows as a measure of quality, they see them as a source of agreement.
Yes. The most frustrating thing about this site is getting downmodded (repeatedly) without any replies. If you don't agree, say so! Then maybe we can have an intelligent discourse. I have often made comments that are counter to the "groupthink" of the thread. Sometimes because I disagree, sometimes just to play devil's advocate to see where it leads. But always to learn and share.
If clicking the down arrow without replying becomes a trend, then no one will want to disagree. Then where will we be?
I agree 100%.
I dont even know how to downmode someone. How do I?
you don't, because you don't have enough karma yet. you have to get to 20 or so before downmodding is possible.
I go one step further - if someone writes an insightful, contrarian comment that I don't agree with, I'll upmod it for quality. For instance if someone brings up a real downside of startup life it usually gets attacked, but I'll vote it up if it is good.