> I've already accrued more downvotes on the comment than there are followup comments, so people are ignoring the request anyway, and probably not even making it that far in the comment before clicking the button.
You can make whatever requests you like, but people are not obligated to accede to them, and I'm letting you know that such requests are generally counterproductive.
I had an account when pg left that comment. That was five years ago, long before grayed-out comments were even implemented. Now, if enough people disagree with a comment, it turns gray and is never seen again. Which means the only comments that will survive now are the ones that everybody considers agreeable enough to upvote or leave alone.
There's a word for that. Several, actually. Because of that, I now think that pg is even more wrong than he was at the time.
>>> the only comments that will survive now are the ones that everybody considers agreeable enough to upvote or leave alone
That's obviously not true, in "everybody" part. True statement would be "the only comments that will survive now are the ones that are not disagreeable to substantially more people than agree with them". I.e., comment that 51% like and 49% hate would still have positive points.
No, I was disagreeing with your point that on HN you need to agree with everybody. Since there are both upvotes and downvotes, only prevalence of downvotes leads to a negative rating, not any disagreement.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
> I've already accrued more downvotes on the comment than there are followup comments, so people are ignoring the request anyway, and probably not even making it that far in the comment before clicking the button.
You can make whatever requests you like, but people are not obligated to accede to them, and I'm letting you know that such requests are generally counterproductive.