Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PG on trolls

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 190 posts

Re: PG on trolls

#61

Post by greendestiny »

mixmax wrote: post #54
pg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness. It only becomes abuse when people resort to karma bombing: downvoting a lot of comments by one user without reading them in order to subtract maximum karma. Fortunately we now have several levels of software to pro…

I don't entirely agree. I have seen quite a few comments that were extremely insightful, and/or interesting that got downmodded due to an unpopular opinion. The reason this is unfortunate is not only that you tend to miss these (assuming that there is a higher probability that you read or think about comments that are rated higher, which I am surely not the only one that is guilty of) but also that it tends to promot…

Better to encourage people to read comments even though they've been downmodded. Ultimately voting is about the reaction people have to the comment, and trying to institute some sort of high brow rules is unlikely to work. I must admit I'll read comments that have been downmodded just to see what the controversy is - and those I agree with I try to back up.

Re: PG on trolls

#62

Post by curi »

DarrenStuart wrote: post #47
DarrenStuart wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

very true but I have seen valid responses down modded because of fanboyism and blindness to other views. I guess we don't always behave in a grown up way online. I am as guilty of that as the next guy.

lol the irony of being down modded for my last comment :p

it's not necessarily ironic. maybe they didn't like how you used "grown up" to imply that children have the various bad traits you listed. which isn't a very reasonable or informative description of children.

Re: PG on trolls

#63

Post by ken »

I don't think "distance" is the primary cause of asshole behavior by automobile drivers, though it does sound like a convenient first approximation.

If I was walking down the street with a $20,000 ming vase, and you were running around nearly hitting me, I'd probably swear at you. Likewise, if you were running around on the street wielding a sharp katana, I'd probably swear at you.

A car is both as expensive as a ming vase, and as deadly as a sword. The idea that a rational person would not get highly upset when somebody threatened both their life and the most expensive thing they own is absurd. "Distance" has little to do with it.

Re: PG on trolls

#64

Post by michaelneale »

"The sites's guidelines explicitly ask people not to say things they wouldn't say face to face."

Interesting, I know quite a few people that would in fact all but troll in person, to your face.

Although in their case, its more to do with them having no outbound tact filter: http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html

Re: PG on trolls

#66

Post by serhei »

dfranke wrote: post #17
anewaccountname wrote: post #15

Who is this guy and what authority does he have to write about these topics? I haven't read the essay, but there's no way anything so short and written in such an informal style could have anything useful to say about such and such topic, when people with degrees in the subject have already written many thick books about it.

Where can I get a degree in trolling?

Not very many places give out diplomas, but if you want to get a job at a trolling company, you can just practice on pretty much any forum. Eventually hundreds of people will know you're a troll, giving you hundreds of references to take to a potential employer. Just make sure you don't ever accidentally post anything that actually contributes to the discussion.

Re: PG on trolls

#67

Post by serhei »

One of the main contributing factors to the abundance of trolling on forums is indeed that text is a much less expressive medium than face-to-face communication, meaning that you very often end up trapped into voicing your opinion in a trollish manner due to just carelessly throwing your initial thoughts into the text box.

You can give up, though, and perpetrate the crapstorm, or you can remind yourself that being good at communicating your ideas and opinions is an important part of being a well-rounded hacker; then you can view the posting of only coherent and non-inflammatory replies on fora as practice for when you'll have to communicate about programs you are writing.

Re: PG on trolls

#68

Post by zoltz »

DarrenStuart wrote: post #11

I think news.yc has a 5th troll behavior and it's down modding a comment because they disagree with it. I have been down modded a number of times not for saying something rude or stupid just something that others don't agree with. I tend to down mod rude and aggressive people on here and I also up mod people who I think have been down modded unfairly. I am not sure if I am alone with my way of thinking.

Arc

Re: PG on trolls

#69

Post by lg »

curi wrote: post #42
dfranke wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your (possibly accidental) assertion that what premises people believe affects what statements about reality are true None of the statements in question have to do with reality, only with abstract ideas. Libertarians believe that property ownership is a right; communists believe that it is an offense. Neither of these assertions is empirically testable. If the debate is about what policies will make us wealthier rath…

You give a good example: which policies towards the market create more wealth (on average, various things being equal) is a matter of fact. But I think this sort of non-arbitrary approach to thinking has much wider applicability, and indeed that all interesting subjects can be approached in a careful, meaningful way not based on personal taste. Which policies are ethical, with "ethics" rightly construed, is also a ma…

It's funny that you think a lifestyle is immoral if it doesn't accomplish its own "internal goals." I think that's wrong, and not just in pathological cases. I might be an ultracompetitive misanthrope who lives to be on top (gordon-gecko-ish capitalist). But the way I get there (startup? investing?) might end up helping lots of people; maybe helping them surpass me. Was I immoral, because I didn't accomplish my goal to be number one? I'd rather have more of those people than more couch potatoes complaining about the immorality of powerful people.

Re: PG on trolls

#70

Post by curi »

lg wrote: post #69
curi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You give a good example: which policies towards the market create more wealth (on average, various things being equal) is a matter of fact. But I think this sort of non-arbitrary approach to thinking has much wider applicability, and indeed that all interesting subjects can be approached in a careful, meaningful way not based on personal taste. Which policies are ethical, with "ethics" rightly construed, is also a ma…

It's funny that you think a lifestyle is immoral if it doesn't accomplish its own "internal goals." I think that's wrong, and not just in pathological cases. I might be an ultracompetitive misanthrope who lives to be on top (gordon-gecko-ish capitalist). But the way I get there (startup? investing?) might end up helping lots of people; maybe helping them surpass me. Was I immoral, because I didn't accomplish my goal…

That was a brief summary and one can say it more carefully. Most importantly, immorality is not a boolean thing. If you aren't accomplishing a goal, it'd be an improvement (more moral, a better way of life) to either change your approach, or change your goal. It is less moral (a worse way of life, immoral) to continue with a lifestyle that is failing by its own criteria of success and failure.

That needs the caveat that we only mean goals you actually intend to accomplish. We don't mean vague goals, and we definitely don't mean the sort of goal you would be happy to partially achieve -- in that case, the real goal is just making progress towards ... your "goal". (It's the same word, but it's a different concept than the one I mean).

Back to your points, you say that even if you fail by your own standards, you might help others, and the net effect of your life may be positive. That's absolutely true. However, it'd be even better (more moral) if you did the same actions, but had wiser goals, which those actions were achieving. Then you'd help others, but also consider your own life successful.

Post reply on HN