I keep "show dead" on so that I can catch users who were hellbanned because they somehow angered a moderator when he was having a bad day. Usually I'll find 2-3 per week, some of them having posted insightful comments for over a YEAR without realizing they'd been banned. From my informal count, I'd say that less than 50% of hellbans that I've seen are legitimate.

I also make a habit of upvoting comments that have been unfairly downvoted, and downvoting silly one-liners that don't add anything but noise to the discussion.

As for my own comments being downvoted, it really makes no difference to me since people can still read the comment. If I ever get hellbanned, I'll just leave.

That has been exactly my experience. When I first heard about "show dead" I turned it on out of curiosity and started to find all sorts of interesting and worthwhile comments. Yes, a few trolls too, but fewer of those.

It really bothers my sense of ethics that the scenario you described can happen: someone posting insightful comments for a year and not realizing they are a "ghost". It's a waste of human potential - both for the writer and for those who don't get to read the comments - and the system here is explicitly designed to keep the writer in the dark about the situation.

How is this a good thing?

(I also have showdead for the same reason - reading dissenting opinions can be quite interesting)

It's a good thing if only because the alternative would be a ban, and they would stop posting altogether. They may be a ghost but I see value in their posts - or I wouldn't have showdead on.

This makes me wonder how many users have showdead on?

Actually, I check my username once a week for a hellban precisely because I don't like the idea of being silently censored. An outright ban is far more palatable than realizing after a year that I've just been wasting my time. Just the mere thought of it ruins my desire to participate in the fist place.

Maybe you should be writing for yourself, not for the others?

I write to share ideas/experiences I have. If there are replies, there is a valuable feedback - either as a validation, or as a suggestion of other things I should reconsider. I try to "reward" the valuable inputs by pressing on upvote, even I forget sometimes (upvoting is diverting - I don't really like to spend time on that)

Someday I may be hellbanned. Maybe 90% won't see my posts then, but the 10% that do is what matters - people who see value in dissenting opinions, and may still offer interesting insightful replies

The problem is that if you know you are banned you can just create an extra account and continue trolling.

Perhaps there should be a method for those with "showdead" switched on to petition for a review of a hellbanned user?

An idea I had the other day is a "resurrect" feature. If you have X karma and showdead turned on, you have an upvote link for comments made by hellbanned users (unless a moderator killed that comment specifically). Two upvotes by non-hellbanned users leads to the comment being resurrected, so those without showdead can see it. If a user consistently gets their comments resurrected, they may be eligible to have their entire account resurrected.

That'd be great. I'm always a little sad when I can't upvote a good hellbanned comment.

"In a community like HN, I think it has a secondary value, as well, in that it provides well-intentioned posters with feedback that they are making a weak point, or doing it in a way that is not contributory to the community."

Dream on. Whenever I try to troll a bit (or let's say be flamboyant) I get upvotes. Sometimes massively. Whenever I present "unpopular but sincere opinion" I get downvoted, usually massively.

Exactly. There is a huge gap between how the system was designed to work and how it actually works.

What upvoting is supposed to be: "Good post that adds a lot to the discussion." What it really is: "I agree with this guy."

What downvoting is supposed to be: "Person is spamming, making a weak point or arguing in an inflammatory manner." What it really is: "You're wrong shut the hell up."

This problem could be fixed if people were forced to give a reason for their upvotes and downvotes. Imagine if every time you click upvote, a small textbox appears that has a list of predefined options, such as "valid point" or "good contribution" or "i learned something". Similarly, every time you click downvote, it automatically takes you to the Reply page; if you don't reply, your downvote does not go through.

This kind of transparency would encourage people to be more thoughtful when they cast their votes.

I recall reading somewhere (from HN) that upvoting as an agreement was allowed. Can't find the source though..

You could point out some examples for us to evaluate?

Why not.

Here I'm serious and know what I'm talking: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4607657 (-8) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3698183 (-2) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1826775 (-2)

Here I'm flamboyantly trolling: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3360362 (+8) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3334634 (+2) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3116814 (+6)

Having read those, I'm pretty much on your side about the karma, but in each of the downvoted ones I can pick out a thing that definitely rubs people up the wrong way and can lead to downvotes if they already disagree with the content of the post.

Firstly you begin with "No.", which many many folks on here find rude and arrogant, and I'm basically with them - plus I've read so many ranty unreasonable posts beginning with "No." that it begins to hoist a red flag - then you misspell "keyboard". Those kinds of things tip people over from "disagree" to "downvote".

Second, "Do not ever bring PSD to me. Ever." - who are you talking to? Yes, I think we get it, but you must understand how rude it sounds. In this case I am sure that had you replied to the (sincere) follow up question then you'd have got some correcting upvotes. You didn't, so it looks like you're just ranting.

Thirdly, typos: "something what", "get's". You don't get downvoted for typos, but when you're saying something like you were in that post you need to do so with authority. If you undermine that then it recontextualises the post and makes it seem like you're bullshitting.

The problem that they all have though is TONE. You sound aggressive.