Comment by mechanical_fish | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mechanical_fish | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

mechanical_fish

[removes coin from pocket]

[flips coin: heads]

Okay, I won't downvote you this time. Please, do not tease Two-Face again.

And if you feel the need to deploy "defense" against downvotes, you are either saying things that don't need to be said, or you are being needlessly defensive and thereby undermining your own point. If what you're saying isn't worth potentially being downvoted for, delete it.

The impulse to write "I'm probably going to get downvoted for this" can actually be quite healthy. When you find yourself typing that sentence, it's your subconscious telling you that you need to change something. Most likely, your subconscious is telling you to delete the comment and step away from the keyboard for several hours. Or, save the comment to an offline buffer where it can be recovered by future archaeologists. Or, write a different comment. Or, rephrase the comment. Or: Read the comment, take a deep breath, grow some courage, delete the disclaimer, and press Reply.

if you feel the need to deploy "defense" against downvotes, you are either saying things that don't need to be said, or you are being needlessly defensive and thereby undermining your own point.

The problem is that the majority of the voting community on HN tends to think a certain way. When I first joined, I went through several spurts of "why did I get downvoted for this?" I wasn't trolling, and I was being constructive. However, my opinions differed greatly on those subjects. I haven't really been downvoted much recently, and I'm pretty sure it's because I'm subconsciously conforming to the culture/groupthink.

If you want a specific example: just about anything in favor of increased government control will result in downvotes, regardless of the arguments presented. You could win a policy debate with a given argument, and still have it down voted here because people don't agree with it.

It is lamentable that comments receive downvotes for taking an unpopulr position, however that does not change the fact that starting a comment with a meta-discussion about its unpopularity weakens the argument being presented and is off-topic.

No, I agree with you; I was just trying to clarify the thought behind doing it.

"And if you feel the need to deploy 'defense' against downvotes, you are either saying things that don't need to be said, or you are being needlessly defensive and thereby undermining your own point."

The place I have used this rhetorical technique (and I'm ashamed to admit I have, 'cause I find it irksome myself), is when I'm posting something I believe is correct or worth considering, but which goes against the overriding sentiment of the site. I believe it disarms people's unthinking, reflexive downvote, though I have only my own experience to draw this from.

Maybe you think this is being "needlessly defensive", but that sounds like someone who's never had a comment downvoted to oblivion only because its sentiment is unpopular.

I'm not really sure why being defensive would undermine someone's point.

"If what you're saying isn't worth potentially being downvoted for, delete it."

The point isn't the negative karma (though that is a motivator for most people), the point is that down-votes mean something is less likely to be read (due to mechanical filtering), or will be read as a troll rather than as a reasonable opinion. People put some stock in the hivemind's opinions.

To reiterate what the post you replied to said: don't hate the player, hate the game.

I'm not really sure why being defensive would undermine someone's point.

When you begin your point with something other than your point, you undermine your argument. This is true even when you say something popular. If you begin a point with “As everybody agrees, ...” You have wasted the three most precious opening words on something other than whatever it is everybody agrees is the case.

don't hate the player, hate the game.

I am not hating the player, if I didn’t care what people had to say I wouldn’t be suggesting ways to say it more effectively. I also don’t hate the game, in fact I am giving you strategies for playing it well.

Speaking of which, here is another: Be careful with clichés like this. Their real value is as a social signal, a way of telling people “I’m hip, you’re hip, we are the same kind of person, vote for me.” They don’t actually make your point very well. In most cases, they have become so overused that people register their tone and move along without giving them much thought.

If what you want is to establish that tone and encourage people to respond favourably to you and your words because of your style and tone, carry on. However, if what you want is to persuade people of your point, I suggest arguing your point more directly and eschew rhetorical tricks.

I don’t know how you perceive things, but my impression is that discussion on site slike reddit are dominated by rhetorical tricks, memes, puns, and other instances where social signalling dominates discussion. Hacker News is not immune to this, but it is certainly more understated and at least attempts to prefer reasoned discussion to ad hominems and other emotional devices.

JM2C, YMMV ;-)

While I agree that being defensive at first does use up the most important part of a post, I don't think it necessarily undermines it. If you can disarm people's preconceived prejudices even a bit, it may well have been worth it to avoid the knee-jerk groupthink down-vote that plagues every site, including HN.

To the extent that my use of cliche distracted from point, I am sorry I used it. Similarly, I find meta-discussion, such as critique of the language of each others posts to be distracting from important discussion.

Finally, you should hate the game. The voting system on sites like Digg, Reddit, HN, have very serious problems, and the "rhetorical tricks" like prefacing a post with "I'll probably be downvoted for saying this..." are an unintended consequence of a poorly designed incentive system. Maybe I'm oversensitive to this sort of thing as a game developer, but it seems to me worthwhile to address an incentive system which encourages people to write suboptimal posts that use these "rhetorical tricks".

I'm not advocating for the abolition of self-moderation, karma systems, etc. -- I'm just saying that the systems in place are rudimentary and leave much to be desired.

I agree with you.

Ultimately, I am pessimistic about automated “gamification” of forums. Human moderation seems to be the only thing that works reliably. The moment you introduce rules and scores and incentives, poeple start to play the game for its own sake. This is obviously a larger human phenomenon.

As for clichés, I’m not against them, and I think making your point and then ending on a social signal—as you did--adds a personal touch that makes a post enjoyable to read.

That line really tied the room together.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com