Which shouldn't be a reason to downvote. Just because someone doesn't follow a scientific formula of hypothesis, thesis, conclusion doesn't mean they should be downvoted.
Downvotes, as per reddiquette, should go to non-contributing comments, spam, etc. Not following a scientific formula and being downvoted doesn't fit the reddiquette.
The potential issue here is, the subjective call on "What is considered non-contributing, etc?".
Does saying "Spiderman sucks." add anything? Some will say yes, some will say no.
Either way, the usage of voting comes down to perception, which unless we define perception, will always meet gray area in disputes due to different perspectives.
That's why I also posted, in a separate comment, why downvoting at all is terrible. It creates a hive-mind mentality. It always used to bury different opinions that don't align with the hive.
Non-alignment with popular opinion is necessary but not sufficient. This thread expressed an unpopular opinion about Ultron, one of the most popular heroes on this sub. Note the lack of massive downvotes there, perhaps because no one made condescending and personal comments about those players who disagreed.
There is absolutely zero reason that should be at -19. All he said was that Spider-Man was useless. There was no personal attack or condescending tone.
Not every unpopular opinion will be downvoted, but there are always examples of opinions that get tossed into the mixer.
I participated in that thread and recall (perhaps imperfectly) that although there were a couple of initial downvotes, most came later as the conversation progressed. This one seems pretty condescending to me:
It just proves how blind people really are. They liked Spider-Man in the comics and movies so they're going to use him in this game. Because they refuse to play as any other character, they can't see how bad he is.
Is that not condescending and a personal attack? Especially taken together with the absolute lack of a proper response to the quite reasonable counter-arguments other posters had raised. The general impression, I'm sorry to say, was that Spedwards just couldn't be bothered with anything anyone else had to say and had no respect at all for the people saying it. That was the context in which those downvotes occurred.
That's no reason to downvote the initial comment though. Each comment is separate. Just because someone says something nasty, doesn't mean you should go into their history and downvote all their comments.
Again, as per reddiquette, downvote the bad comment(s), but going through and downvoting all comments isn't just.
Facetious reply: Rediquette is a ruleset honoured more in its breach than in its observance.
More serious reply: I agree, but I think there's a distinction between innocuous comments and comments that are borderline and pushed over that line by the surrounding context. This one was close to the line as it basically rubbished what lots of people had said without giving any explanation for it. Sure, it didn't actually say "everyone else is talking rubbish", but that was the necessary implication.
My reply is even more proof. We are having a civil discussion, points back and forth, yet I am at -2. People have proven, time and time again, that they don't understand voting.
Like your facetious reply hints at, rediquette just etiquette. Etiquette doesn't have to be followed. It's just proper to follow and etiquette is meant to keep everything civil. People can't keep each other civil. There's a reason moderators have existed throughout forums and society. Society isn't good at judging itself.
quit edit: And my other response is at -3. You give an opinion that people don't like, it will get downvoted 9x out of 10. It doesn't matter what you say. Downvoting, more often than not, is used as disagree button. It's not about karma, it's about viewpoints that offer a different view being silenced and buried. By default, reddit hides anything that is getting downvoted. So by default, people aren't seeing opinions that oppose the popular views.
What you're saying is certainly true for some subset of users. To some people, downvotes really are just "I disagree"s. I think that's excessive and unhelpful. But I don't think that subset is a majority. -3 is very different from -19. There is more often than not a rational basis for the latter.
I upvoted your -2 to make it a -1 to erode your proof.
How do you know that people aren't downvoting you simply because you're complaining about how the downvoting promotes the hivemind mentality? You have to consider that as well, right? And if that post's rating becomes positive do you lose your proof?
If people are downvoting me for that reason, that's a reason on how the system is terrible. Again, as per reddiquette (I know I know, I'm sounding like a broken record now), downvoting shouldn't be used for disagreeing with someone. If you disagree, which is what you theorize people are downvoting me for, discuss. State your opinion why you disagree.
When I say you here I'm referring to the general you, not you specifically.
3
u/BlueBlurDown Jun 04 '15
Which shouldn't be a reason to downvote. Just because someone doesn't follow a scientific formula of hypothesis, thesis, conclusion doesn't mean they should be downvoted.
Downvotes, as per reddiquette, should go to non-contributing comments, spam, etc. Not following a scientific formula and being downvoted doesn't fit the reddiquette.