[laumars]

Why on earth was that voted down? It wasn't rude, spam, nor factually inaccurate.

I'm getting quite fed up with people who abuse their negative karma privileges. I mean, at least justify your peer moderation with a follow up comment when the reason for the penalty is as ambiguous as it is in this instance.

I excepect I'll just get down voted again though, for daring to have a rant about people who do "hit and run" down voting...

[Dylan16807]

Because it was wrong.

It's not a penalty, it's just a downvote. Penalty would be flagging.

Honestly sometimes I wish people had to justify upvotes...

[laumars]

> Because it was wrong.

...and once again you've failed to specify why it was wrong. Simply stating something to be wrong is a worthless comment. Provide an reason; or citation if it's necessary. I'm open to correction if you can provide a counter argument.

Though on this occasion I can say with certainty that I'm right about Comic Sans being non-free (http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/font.aspx?FMID=35) and that @font-face allows you to include custom fonts into webpages (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@font-face).

> It's not a penalty, it's just a downvote. Penalty would be flagging.

It deducts points from my karma; it's a penalty.

> Honestly sometimes I wish people had to justify upvotes...

I agree with that too. However that's not the issue here.

[Dylan16807]

@font-face is not a solution that works 100% of the time.

I'm not sure how to back that up, it's a basic fact.

Someone was being cheeky about ensuring comic sans. You replied by 'correcting' them with something that wouldn't in fact ensure comic sans. It was wrong and not particularly useful, and it had a good amount of missing-the-joke, so it got downvoted.

[laumars]

I didn't say it works 100% of time. (See my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8832776) and I did say that I wasn't sure if that was a joke or not from the offset (text isn't always easy to judge sarcasm)

So basically what you are saying is you down voted me because you misread my post (and frankly, even if I did categorically state what you thought I said, I still think your reason would have been somewhat petty)

This is why people shouldn't down vote without leaving a reply first. :)

[Dylan16807]

>I didn't say it works 100% of time. (See my other comment

When you reply to 'ensures' then by default you are talking about ensuring. There are plenty of ways for hosted fonts to fail, even in supported browsers. And when you talk about fallbacks with 'at least' you have missed the point that an image format is comic sans or bust, never an inferior font.

>I did say that I wasn't sure if that was a joke or not

Being aware that you missed a joke doesn't make a joke-missing comment better.

>This is why people shouldn't down vote without leaving a reply first. :)

So you can pedantically argue about being right rather than accept that your comment wasn't as helpful as you thought? Seems like a net negative to me.

>somewhat petty

I suppose. It depends on whether you think downvotes are necessarily a rebuke.

>So basically what you are saying is you down voted me because you misread my post

I didn't downvote you. What an unfortunate misreading. ;)

[laumars]

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing:

1. I didn't say "ensures" and commenting that the context carries over from the previous comment while also arguing it's a joke that shouldn't be taken literally is just daft.

Plus, as I'd already said, images aren't 100% supported either, so the 100% figure you're pining for doesn't exist anyway.

2. My comments have at least been informative, unlike the kind of non-constructive arguing and hit-and-run moderation you seen keen on promoting.

Your compliant seems to just be that I did not replied to a joke with a joke. Personally I don't think that's enough for negative karma, but opinions obviously differ on this. :)

3. You are arguing about me being pedantic while basing your entire rebuttal on fringe cases. Does that not strike you as a little hypothetical?

4. Making the assumption that you down voted me isn't a misreading when I specifically requested those that did down vote me to discuss why. You were effectively confessing to the act. However I am grateful that someone has elelaborate on why I would have received negative reputation, even if that was from someone who was reasoning about another's motives :)