News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fitbit employees charged with stealing trade secrets from... by vonmoltke on Friday June 15, 2018 @07:42AM (#17319010)
> The downvotes are because theft of trade secrets is a crime.

That is not a legitimate reason to down vote a question.

Re:Fitbit employees charged with stealing trade secrets from... by giancarlostoro on Friday June 15, 2018 @07:58AM (#17319082)
Sometimes I wish downvotes required a mandatory reply.
Re:Fitbit employees charged with stealing trade secrets from... by IMTDb on Friday June 15, 2018 @08:22AM (#17319196)
Downvoted because I don't agree

(I did not really downvote but you get my point)

Re:Fitbit employees charged with stealing trade secrets from... by giancarlostoro on Friday June 15, 2018 @09:13AM (#17319495)
Ah yes and then downvoting them might be hell. If only there was a good way to determine when to force someone to reply when downvoting.
Re:Fitbit employees charged with stealing trade secrets from... by pc86 on Friday June 15, 2018 @08:36AM (#17319286)
They do require a certain karma threshold which is supposed to prevent people without sufficient context in the HN community from downvoting a bunch of stuff. I also think if you downvote beyond a certain threshold in a certain period of time it stops counting them (to prevent flame threads from devolving into everyone destroying everyone else's Internet Points perhaps).

Perhaps the karma threshold needs to be increased.

Re:Fitbit employees charged with stealing trade secrets from... by ameister14 on Friday June 15, 2018 @09:46AM (#17319716)
I don't think the threshold is cutting it anymore - I've noticed a lot of reddit-like behavior with people downvoting things they don't like or agree with rather than things that don't contribute to the conversation; this is balanced out by other people but it's not something that I saw happen 1-5 years ago.
Re:Fitbit employees charged with stealing trade secrets from... by crankylinuxuser on Friday June 15, 2018 @09:19AM (#17319522)
So only people who can downvote are those that agree with each other? Surely a cursory examination of unintended side-effects was done - it is HN, right?

A mandatory comment as to why someone -1'ed a post should be mandatory. Unless someone is intentionally being abusive/troll, then perhaps we should engage in the lesser popular viewpoints. Not doing so creates one hell of an echo chamber.

EDIT: currently at -1. You're only proving my point, buddy.

Re:Fitbit employees charged with stealing trade secrets from... by pc86 on Friday June 15, 2018 @11:00AM (#17320208)
You can't downvote replies to your comments. So you are at -1 with no influence on my part. :)

I'm not sure mandatory comments would solve the problem. We'd get plenty of the "I disagree." comments. Could those then be downvoted? Does downvoting those upvote the parent? Could I downvote both. Etc.

I don't know the current threshold but increasing it doesn't create an echo chamber. Look at any thread about gun control in the US and you will a lot downvoted comments on both sides and presumably a lot of highly upvoted comments on both sides as well. Not only that but you can only downvote comments until they reach a certain age. You can upvote them much longer (perhaps forever?). This creates a bias toward increasing votes which itself is a good reason to occasionally adjust the thresholds.

Re:Fitbit employees charged with stealing trade secrets from... by LinuxBender on Friday June 15, 2018 @04:02PM (#17323056)
How about stats, similar to serverfault and stackexchange, where you can see how many times the person has upvoted and downvoted?