Karma actually has a real value on HN because it prevents some people from downvoting. If an Google fan keeps an Apple fan below the karma threshold then the Apple fan won't be able to shape future discussions. The system encourages people to downvote even reasonable comments that are from the "other team". You ran into somebody like that.
Ah, interesting! Thanks for sharing. I thought my comment was fairly ambiguous as to which "team" I'm on (I develop for both iOS and Android), but I guess when it comes to these kinds of polarizing politics, if someone doesn't immediately identify with your viewpoint, you must be from the "other team".
To do that, "the other team" person would have to make a calculation based on keeping a certain account they don't like below 500 points. I don't think it's even possible to achieve that if anyone tried, and the probability of an account being just at that limit is pretty low to begin with.
Then why does HN have a 500 karma limit on voting? Why was it raised? If karma doesn't work to exclude people with unpopular opinions then there's no point to the limit. If it does work and helps shape the discussion in a certain way then it can be used by others to tilt the discussion toward their viewpoint. Surely you must have noticed how cliquey HN is.
> Then why does HN have a 500 karma limit on voting?
Occasionally getting downvoted not withstanding, a user's karma tends to only go up over time, as long as the account isn't flagged in any way. It's generally not a battle between negative and positive karma - getting downvoted is more of a short-term signal that others found the quality of your post wanting. So in an environment where there are many more upvotes than downvotes, a 500 karma limit is merely a means to stop novice users from dishing out punishment until they become more experienced users.
Downvoting a comment sends a harsh signal to the commenter that you believe their comment is so bad it shouldn't be there, but it's an unsuitable tool to influence the discussion at large.
> Why was it raised?
I've been here a few years and to my knowledge the limit wasn't raised during that time.
> If karma doesn't work to exclude people with unpopular opinions then there's no point to the limit.
As someone who mostly only posts if he has something contrarian to say, I don't think it's about unpopular opinions. Yes, I receive some downvotes, but mostly people just ignore me, so my average comment karma is very low. That's what you can expect for having unpopular or boring opinions. Reaching the karma threshold necessary for downvoting on the other hand isn't really that big of a deal, nor is it really a challenge.
HN's primary exclusion mechanism is flagging, not downvoting. In a way it's more insidious because you may not even notice it's happening. People get shadowbanned, even. Or, as apparently happened to me yesterday for the first time as far as I can tell, a moderator steps in and forcefully pushes your comment below the much older "green newbie" comments where the thoroughly grey content goes to die.
Downvoting is at least an overt signal, like I said. And personally I think the capability to issue a downvote is probably overrated.
> tilt the discussion toward their viewpoint
Discussions on HN are generally not happening on the razor's edge of opinions. Instead, they tend to be carried out by people who are very certain of their own viewpoint. There is so much momentum, tilting these things is not an issue. But if you can voice a coherent minority opinion, that comment might still get to the top of the thread.
> Surely you must have noticed how cliquey HN is.
It depends, I think there are several big blocks of people here who think alike, but I noticed the biggest influence on how a post is received often seems timezone-related.
