zlacker

>>sharps+(OP)
I think news.yc has a 5th troll behavior and it's down modding a comment because they disagree with it. I have been down modded a number of times not for saying something rude or stupid just something that others don't agree with.

I tend to down mod rude and aggressive people on here and I also up mod people who I think have been down modded unfairly.

I am not sure if I am alone with my way of thinking.

>>Darren+t
We shouldn't down mod things we disagree with?

>>immad+B
I guess it's a matter of pertinence. Comments supporting a constructive conversation should be uppmodded (which does not mean it's comments you agree with). Or comments you want others to pay attention to (diluting uninteresting ones by extension).

Like in this thread, we can note the irony (and worshiping) of the community, with the top comment (11 points so far) done by anewaccountname, deliberately taking a piss out of PG's essay.

>>cawel+K
Actually, there's no way a comment like anewaccountname's would get upmodded to that extent were it not a verbatim reference to pg's previous article.

The fact that people here upmod/downmod based on whether they agree rather than whether it's insightful really bothers me. I think it's the wrong incentive structure.

>>aston+P
The first comment was funny, though. Yes, if you want to pick it apart, it was funny because it was a verbatim reference to the earlier article, but it was funny nonetheless.

Likewise, it was funny that the "Funny..." comment was modded to -1. At least, I found it funny. Point being, I don't think these were rewards for groupthink, so much as rewards for geeks being clever.

>>timr+41
It's really interesting the idea of being able to tag posts with a rating which describes their quality, such as "annoying" "boring" "funny" or "relevant" rather than just plus minus some points.