It depends. Sometimes it can be helpful, especially since people can't tell if it's an understatement.
For example, a faux example under Death from Above:
- CharacterX mildly surprised VillainY when he dropped in during the Final Battle
vs.
- CharacterX [[Understatement mildly surprised]] VillainY when he dropped in during the Final Battle.
Either works, but the second one makes it clear that it's an understatement, which might not be clear from the first.
"The fact that your food can be made into makeshift bombs alarms the Hell out of me, Scrye." - CharlatanI suppose a parallel could be drawn with Sarcasm Mode, which I'm not keen on either; if it's not clear from the context that something is sarcastic or understated, it should probably be rewritten so that it either isn't or clearly is.
"if it's not clear from the context that something is sarcastic or understated, it should probably be rewritten so that it either isn't or clearly is."
Sarcasm's been used in literature for centuries without emoticons or potholed text, with its tone generally understandable purely by the way it's phrased. In fact, The Other Wiki points this out
as an example from the Old Testament:
—>Lo, you see the man is mad; why then have you brought him to me? Do I lack madmen, that you have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence?
—>—I Sam 21:10-15
Admittedly the above isn't the same as modern sarcasm, but still, to flag it up by potholing it reminds me of nothing so much as this exchange from The Simpsons:
—>Homer: Oh, look at me! I'm making people happy! I'm the magical man from Happyland, living in a gumdrop house in Lollipop Lane! [beat] Oh, by the way, I was being sarcastic.
—>Marge: Well, duh.
edited 28th Nov '10 2:46:17 AM by IronLion
That's incredibly obvious sarcasm. Sarcasm can be much more subtle and sometimes without tone of voice it's almost completely indistinguishable from Sincerity Mode. For example, if you're in an argument and you say something agreeing with side A but you really agree with side B, that's sarcasm; but someone who doesn't know you and can't hear your voice would never know.
Similarly, with understatement, people who don't know the details of the incident in question wouldn't know if something was an understatement or not. It adds "back channels" back into the text, which is no bad thing IMO.

Is it just me, or does it completely defeat the purpose of using understatement when you lampshade it by potholing the understated phrase?
I don't object to potholing it in quotes from a work, but it comes across as somewhat wiki schizophrenic when used in troper commentary: since each article is supposed to use a consistent voice, it doesn't make sense to have it simultaneously being understated and pointing out its own understatement.
edited 27th Nov '10 10:57:11 AM by IronLion