Random thought: the interesting thing about voting systems where 'disagreement' can align with a downvote: your most interesting comments should be highly upvoted AND downvoted, ultimately hovering around 1.
It means half the people agree, and half disagree, bringing about the most discussion. And, isn't that the point of comments?
I don't expect a particularly strong correlation between "good comment" and "half of people agree". Nor do I think those are going to bring the most discussion. And most discussion is not the point of comments either.
And all those caveats are just for a purely agreement-based voting system. When you add in votes based on quality, comments hovering around 1 are usually iffy.
But that comment and others like it are being heavily downvoted and flagged, more than enough to be killed and to alert us to users who need to be banned.
You've been running this rage-filled campaign against HN for months, the most extreme comments of which I've listed below.
It all seems very pointless; all the comments you were raging against were downvoted and flagged/killed by other users. The comment of yours that you complained was being downvoted actually ended up receiving enough upvotes to return to a positive score.
If you don't want to use HN as intended we'll ban the account, which it seems perhaps is what you want us to do.
However you've also posted some good comments that have received solid numbers of upvotes and good replies, so if you wanted to lean more into the positive contributions, we'd be pleased to see that.
We're well aware there are plenty of objectionable comments on HN; we have to read almost all of them. But the guidelines are clear, and the feedback mechanisms work well when people use them.
Plenty of users play a positive role in keeping HN running well by quietly flagging bad comments and alerting us to bad users via email. We'd appreciate you doing the same.
