army1987 isn’t describing “single downvotes” but a pattern where just about everything one user posts is downvoted. Now, for sure, it might be that Ritalin’s comments are almost all just about low-enough quality to get −1 or −2 (but not bad enough to be downvoted more heavily), but another obvious hypothesis is that someone’s decided on a systematic let’s-hurt-Ritalin campaign.
After a quick look through Ritalin’s recent comment history, the second hypothesis seems somewhat more plausible to me.
(I hope it’s wrong; I think that kind of behaviour is harmful to Less Wrong as well as unpleasant for the target.)
Most posts on LW do get votes. It would surprise me to go through any users history and see that his recent posts all got no votes.
Things don’t need to be generally low quality to get downvotes. Anything that’s a bit controversial usually get’s some downvotes on LW even if it’s overall in positive karma.
That would be relevant if army1987′s observation had been that almost all of Ritalin’s recent comments have been voted on. It wasn’t.
Anything that’s a bit controversial usually gets some downvotes on LW even if it’s overall in positive karma.
That would be relevant if all those comments were at, say, +4 −3. They aren’t. They’re mostly at +0 −1 or +0 −2 or +1 −1. Which is why the top two competing hypotheses are “consistently lowish perceived quality” and “someone on an anti-Ritalin campaign”.
Which is why the top two competing hypotheses are “consistently lowish perceived quality”
If the post is at +0 −1 there are fewer people who consider the post to be negative than if the post is at +3 −4.
If nobody votes up certain posts than that has nothing to do with “someone on an anti-Ritalin campaign”.
army1987 isn’t describing “single downvotes” but a pattern where just about everything one user posts is downvoted. Now, for sure, it might be that Ritalin’s comments are almost all just about low-enough quality to get −1 or −2 (but not bad enough to be downvoted more heavily), but another obvious hypothesis is that someone’s decided on a systematic let’s-hurt-Ritalin campaign.
After a quick look through Ritalin’s recent comment history, the second hypothesis seems somewhat more plausible to me.
(I hope it’s wrong; I think that kind of behaviour is harmful to Less Wrong as well as unpleasant for the target.)
Report to Viliam_Bur for investigating.
Most posts on LW do get votes. It would surprise me to go through any users history and see that his recent posts all got no votes.
Things don’t need to be generally low quality to get downvotes. Anything that’s a bit controversial usually get’s some downvotes on LW even if it’s overall in positive karma.
That would be relevant if army1987′s observation had been that almost all of Ritalin’s recent comments have been voted on. It wasn’t.
That would be relevant if all those comments were at, say, +4 −3. They aren’t. They’re mostly at +0 −1 or +0 −2 or +1 −1. Which is why the top two competing hypotheses are “consistently lowish perceived quality” and “someone on an anti-Ritalin campaign”.
If the post is at +0 −1 there are fewer people who consider the post to be negative than if the post is at +3 −4. If nobody votes up certain posts than that has nothing to do with “someone on an anti-Ritalin campaign”.