I wished that the initial comment had been more specific given the userâs status and the tone of the criticism (when I put myself in the authorâs shoes, I could imagine being baffled, since the tone of âmyâ post was relatively tame by the standards of most online discussion spaces).
I downvoted that comment, because I didnât see the explanation as helpful to the author and I want to discourage comments that attack an authorâs motivations without evidence (âyou are clearly deciding against both of theseââI wouldnât call the post âkindâ, but it seemed reasonably curious to me in that it closely engaged with Tristanâs work and acknowledged that he had achieved some of his aims, with plausibly good results).
I thought the third comment was really helpful, and is exactly what I hoped to see from the first comment. I upvoted it. Highlighting specific passages is great; it was also nice to see language like âI read X as the author intending Yâ rather than âby X, the author intended Yâ.
As for the post itself, I chose not to vote, as I was caught between upvoting and downvoting. I also objected to elements of the authorâs tone, but I thought the content was a useful counterpoint to a widely-experienced piece of EA content and provided enough specific arguments for commentators to engage productively.
My reaction was similar to Akashâs.
I wished that the initial comment had been more specific given the userâs status and the tone of the criticism (when I put myself in the authorâs shoes, I could imagine being baffled, since the tone of âmyâ post was relatively tame by the standards of most online discussion spaces).
I downvoted that comment, because I didnât see the explanation as helpful to the author and I want to discourage comments that attack an authorâs motivations without evidence (âyou are clearly deciding against both of theseââI wouldnât call the post âkindâ, but it seemed reasonably curious to me in that it closely engaged with Tristanâs work and acknowledged that he had achieved some of his aims, with plausibly good results).
I thought the third comment was really helpful, and is exactly what I hoped to see from the first comment. I upvoted it. Highlighting specific passages is great; it was also nice to see language like âI read X as the author intending Yâ rather than âby X, the author intended Yâ.
As for the post itself, I chose not to vote, as I was caught between upvoting and downvoting. I also objected to elements of the authorâs tone, but I thought the content was a useful counterpoint to a widely-experienced piece of EA content and provided enough specific arguments for commentators to engage productively.