That can't be an actual observation, because the system-imposed limit on negative karma scores for one comment has been -4 for a while. A comment with that recent of an item number would have been posted with that limit in place. I can remember the days when negative karma per comment was apparently unlimited (although such comments would gray out to invisibility at about -25, if I remember correctly) and a longer period when the limit was -8. That hasn't been a problem for most of the most active participants here, even those who actively disagree with some of the consensus opinions that do trigger reflex downvotes here.

It's been -5 at least twice since posting it.

It's you who are choosing to interpret it that way.

In manners, the interpreter of the action is usually the one to be concerned about.

Come-on, this is basic manners we learn as children.

On a separate note, would a terse downvote really be more discouraging and more likely to cause friction and ill will than seeing a list of comments like "Downvote: whiny troll who thinks people only disagree with him because they hate themselves"?

Materially, a person who downvotes without comment is really no different than a person who posts whiny comment, except that the person who bothers to post the comment opens themselves to public ridicule for their statement while a downvoter is perfectly protected behind a veil of absolute anonymity.

Why do you think you're owed this?

In addition, it's good manners. A person who is just contradictory to everything you say, and responds to all of your statements with a "no, you are wrong" over and over again with no further elaboration is usually considered an asshole and doesn't get invited to parties. People want to get invited to parties, so they try not to be rude in this way in real life except towards people they have utter contempt for and whose parties they don't want to go to anyway.

The anonymity of a virtual space however, opens up the doors to people to be out and out rude to one another. A downvote sans comment is even more anonymous because the recipient can't even see who their detractor was (and in addition, by the site guidelines can't even ask for clarification of the downvotes, which is silly).

However, HN guidelines also proscribe:

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.

I think this is reasonable, my contention is that a downvote sans comment is the same as the hypothetical person who just responds "no, you are wrong" over and over again with no further commentary.

Here, we simplify that with a downvote. Have a nice life.

You asked a question, got a civil answer and responded really rather rudely.

At first I thought this elblanco guy was a bit whiny as well, but now I'm starting to see the pattern of bad behavior behind his point.

After your response (and a few others), I think he is perfectly valid.

If my karma were high enough, I would certainly downvote...nay flag your comment as a clear violation of guidelines.

Not the same content at all. One states firmly, the other opens a discussion. One claims that the only two reasons comments get downvoted are a lack of humour and an anger problem and is little more than a trollbait insult to the downvoter, the other questions whether the result of the downvoting process is the same as an ad-hom attack on the commentor and is not an insult to anyone.

Next you'll be telling me there's no difference between "wanting not to do X" and "not wanting to do X".

My comment was providing lessons on the levels of reasoning used to downvote along the lines of pg's essay on the levels of argument.

Feel free to offer more levels or refinements/replacements for the reason to downvote, I started the first two levels, somebody else followed up with another couple levels.

I think they ran roughly parallel to pg's essay in terms of the lowest level being the lowest form of downvote, the next higher level being slightly more sophisticated, and so on.

People want to just use the downvote to be contrary without having to deal with the consequences of being contrary. It's passive-aggressiveness at its worst.

Which you were, because you were attacking downvoters personally instead of their use of the downvote system.

> I would take that as an insult too that since it's a fallacy in thinking.

You are free to take whatever you like as an insult, but if you take a fallacy in my thinking as an insult you're going to spend most of your life feeling insulted and that seems like a silly way to choose to live.

> I started the first two levels, somebody else followed up with another couple levels.

I see; I thought you were offering an exhaustive list rather than the beginnings of a list.

> People want to just use the downvote to be contrary without having to deal with the consequences of being contrary.

Can you back that up with anything? What 'consequences' should there be to downvoting things you don't want to see on a site built to be shaped by the voting of people who are present?

Fair enough.

> I see; I thought you were offering an exhaustive list rather than the beginnings of a list.

Perhaps I should have followed with some ellipses "..."

> Can you back that up with anything? What 'consequences' should there be to downvoting things you don't want to see on a site built to be shaped by the voting of people who are present?

The suppression of dissenting and contradictory voices.

A comment like "downvoted because I disagree with your point about ..." creates value by focusing discussion on a particular area of interest. While just a downvote supplies nothing meaningful to the discussion and merely seeks to suppress some viewpoint in the most general sense.

A definition of discussion is "an exchange of views on some topic", suppressing alternate viewpoints does not lend itself to creating discussion.