Well, without being serious it's really difficult to pull off contributing to a discussion, especially in a way that would be deemed acceptable by you, for example.
My point was that the post up there did not contain leet speak, fanboi terms or first post claims, and did not really deserve eight downvotes worth of punishment only for not contributing.
You could say its contribution was to cheer Cappuccino on.
Why is being told that your post is not contributing considered "punishment"? There's only a single axis for people to express their vote on, and thus that's the only effective way to communicate that someone thinks something isn't contributing. Downvoting is not a personal attack (shouldn't be used as such and shouldn't be interpreted as such), but the belief is that it sufficiently sends a message that such content isn't wanted, for whatever reason (the fact that no reason is supplied is a deficiency in the system itself, having only one axis, not in the use of down votes).
Are we approaching Reddity levels of snarkiness already?
You're right in that there's no need to enumerate all possible offenses, but still, I think the comment was not harmful enough to warrant such a strong negative response.
Inane comments aside, are you sure we're not taking things too seriously?
Is it really absolutely certain that by not sending a strong message, "condemning" any comments that are not dressed up in fancy words and complicated sentences, Hacker News would just totally fall apart?
I can say not much at all in a complicated sentence, and still get no downvotes for not contributing to a conversation.
Is there really no middle ground worth exploring, between the circle-jerk of witticisms with a few insightful and informative comments sprinkled in between that is Reddit, and the rigid, enforced seriousness of HN?
>> Inane comments aside, are you sure we're not taking things too seriously?