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

71–80 of 190 posts

Re: PG on trolls

#71

Post by brent »

pg wrote: post #27
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.

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…

The only problem is such a system will tend to award popular ideas (or humor) as opposed to unique, albeit possibly controversial ideas. When I go digging into the comments I generally look for two things... a large thread of comments and particular users whose opinions I regard. These are not necessarily, although they often are, the posts with the highest points. Occasionally I find gems near the bottom.

Re: PG on trolls

#72

Post by yters »

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…

Highly downmodded comments stand out to me almost as much as highly upmodded comments.

Re: PG on trolls

#73

Post by Trollbert »

This is bad. Anyone should be able to say anything. That way everyone can see what is being said - good, bad, sad, left, right, or wrong. Remember, a democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner. Fuck lamb for dinner!

Re: PG on trolls

#74

Post by sarosh »

ken wrote: post #63

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 min…

Aside: The elegant symmetry with which this metaphor crosses three cultures is absurd, baffling, and truly humbling. What lead you to conjure that up? What is it that you are reading?

Re: PG on trolls

#75

Post by yters »

curi wrote: post #70
lg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Mustn't goals themselves be good or bad, regardless of whether they're achievable? Or would you say that goals, such as Hitler's, were bad only b/c eugenics ultimately would be bad from an evolutionary point of view?

Then, there is a the problem of heroism, which is defined by a person's courage to pursue a noble goal even if its achievement is very unlikely.

Finally, by your definition, I could be one of the most moral people by making my goal "do whatever I want." Everyone is always doing whatever they want, at least at some level. This would pretty much render all talk of morality pointless. But, I suppose I'm being too literal with your definition.

Re: PG on trolls

#76

Post by [deleted] »

pg wrote: post #59
Tichy wrote: post #49

On news.yc it is not so extreme, but on german tech news site heise.de, there is also a modding system. Good threads become green, bad ones red. I have often wondered if people are more likely to start flaming away in the red threads. Sort of like beating up somebody who is already down on the floor (comments on the line of "you suck"). At heise.de I often had the impression that it is the case - not so much on news.…

News.YC users are definitely influenced by the prevailing trend, in both directions. I.e. people are more willing to vote something up as its score rises, and more prone to attack something as its score falls. It's not too bad yet here, but it got to be such a problem on Reddit that about a year ago they switched to not showing how many points a submission has till it's an hour old.

[deleted]

Re: PG on trolls

#77

Post by yters »

prakash wrote: post #24

"Hackers can be abrupt even in person. Put them on an anonymous forum, and the problem gets worse." I am sure everyone on this forum is on some kind of social network. If we can get every user's handle to link to their flavor-du-jour social network's public profile, verify via email -- that should at least cut down on some of the noise. PG: What do you think?

If chains of trust could be widely and rigorously established online, most (maybe all?) of the big problems we have today would be gone.

Re: PG on trolls

#79

Post by curi »

yters wrote: post #75
curi wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Mustn't goals themselves be good or bad, regardless of whether they're achievable? Or would you say that goals, such as Hitler's, were bad only b/c eugenics ultimately would be bad from an evolutionary point of view? Then, there is a the problem of heroism, which is defined by a person's courage to pursue a noble goal even if its achievement is very unlikely. Finally, by your definition, I could be one of the most mo…

These are just starting points. I do think goals are themselves good or bad, but it's much harder to explain how you can objectively make assertions like that, so I wanted to make the lesser claim, for now: there are ways to explore morality objectively.

I'm definitely not claiming consistency of this sort is the only criterion of morality. Only that it's an important and objective one.

I don't mean to be a tease, but if I say too many things at once, I won't be understood as well. On the other hand, threads here go stale fast (usually in under a day), so I'm not sure how to ever get very far in explaining, here. By contrast, on another forum, I am in a thread that has been going for 4 years. And it's only 180 comments long -- so around 1 comment per 8 days.

I'll keep posting here if anyone replies. Or contact me, curi42 on AIM or curi@curi.us

So for depth, my best idea so far is to link longer, external writing. Here are two things I wrote about morality which explain my views a bit more:

Essay: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1252-xii

Dialog: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1169-morality

Re: PG on trolls

#80

Post by pg »

yters wrote: post #77
prakash wrote: post #24

"Hackers can be abrupt even in person. Put them on an anonymous forum, and the problem gets worse." I am sure everyone on this forum is on some kind of social network. If we can get every user's handle to link to their flavor-du-jour social network's public profile, verify via email -- that should at least cut down on some of the noise. PG: What do you think?

If chains of trust could be widely and rigorously established online, most (maybe all?) of the big problems we have today would be gone.

It would be a good thing. If anyone wants to apply to YC with that kind of idea, we'd be into it.
Post reply on HN