[bendotc]

While I agree that being defensive at first does use up the most important part of a post, I don't think it necessarily undermines it. If you can disarm people's preconceived prejudices even a bit, it may well have been worth it to avoid the knee-jerk groupthink down-vote that plagues every site, including HN.

To the extent that my use of cliche distracted from point, I am sorry I used it. Similarly, I find meta-discussion, such as critique of the language of each others posts to be distracting from important discussion.

Finally, you should hate the game. The voting system on sites like Digg, Reddit, HN, have very serious problems, and the "rhetorical tricks" like prefacing a post with "I'll probably be downvoted for saying this..." are an unintended consequence of a poorly designed incentive system. Maybe I'm oversensitive to this sort of thing as a game developer, but it seems to me worthwhile to address an incentive system which encourages people to write suboptimal posts that use these "rhetorical tricks".

I'm not advocating for the abolition of self-moderation, karma systems, etc. -- I'm just saying that the systems in place are rudimentary and leave much to be desired.

[raganwald]

I agree with you.

Ultimately, I am pessimistic about automated “gamification” of forums. Human moderation seems to be the only thing that works reliably. The moment you introduce rules and scores and incentives, poeple start to play the game for its own sake. This is obviously a larger human phenomenon.

As for clichés, I’m not against them, and I think making your point and then ending on a social signal—as you did--adds a personal touch that makes a post enjoyable to read.

That line really tied the room together.