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

Trolls (2008)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 321 posts

Re: Trolls (2008)

#121

Post by _delirium »

scott_s wrote: post #116
angersock wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in the most openly hostile troll communities (FYAD, /b/, etc.) there is a solid "trust": you will be trolled. This idea of trust is a very strange thing, to me. If I present an argument or point logically and it is accepted, then there is no problem. If I do so and it is rejected logically, there is no problem. If I do so and are assailed with noise and rubbish, then it is usually pretty clear that it's just gar…

The kind of trust I'm talking about is trust in honest discourse. If I don't trust that others on a forum will engage with me honestly, then I am less likely to engage with them honestly. As a consequence, the overall discussion on the forum degrades.

I don't strictly disagree, but imo you're trying to generalize a personal preference for discussion styles into general observations, by using normative and inflammatory (is "inflammatory" like "trollish"?) terms like "poison" and "degrades", as opposed to "I don't like".

Re: Trolls (2008)

#122

Post by skybrian »

phzbOx wrote: post #111

There is a difference between trolling, making a funny statement and saying a contrived opinion. On HN, all of these get down-voted equally. Often time, I find something funny, say it as a comment, and get down-voted. It's not a stupid joke or something inappropriate, just a comment that'd make the reader smile. And I know it's hard to judge because I keep saying the score of these comments oscillating (I.e. people u…

Even if they're funny, posts that consist only of a joke generally aren't allowed. They'd be more appropriate for Reddit. Hacker News posts are supposed to have some substance to them.

(You're seeing fluctuations because not everyone knows this.)

Re: Trolls (2008)

#123

Post by kstenerud »

vaksel wrote: post #108
interlagos wrote: post #91

I've been hellbanned here on HN on at least three different IP addresses and accounts...that I am aware of. Probably more. In each case nothing I'd ever said would be considered trolling by any rational observer. Here on HN, however, as with most communities where you start to recognize the regulars (tptacek, raganwald, etc), "trolling" is redefined to simply mean "going against the grain". There was one discussion t…

what does hellbanned look like on HN? Can't login? Can't post? Can post, but noone can see it?

Anything you post can't be seen by others unless they've turned on dead posts in their configuration, in which case anything you post has [dead] prefixed on it.

Though it happens less than in other forums, wagon circling is definitely a persistent problem on HN. I believe it's only further exacerbated by the fact that downvoted comments are displayed in a difficult to read color, meaning that downvotes can effectively censor things the majority doesn't like, regardless of the merit of the argument. It's not as bad as on Reddit, where groups of people form downvote cabals to actively censor specific users or ideas, but it's still problematic.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#124

Post by robbrown451 »

figgles wrote: post #94
127 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only difference between money and karma is that we can't easily trade karma. Modern money is not physical, it is just a figment of our imaginations. It has only the value we collectively give it.

So, in other words, it's really important? Like, pays our bills, heats our homes, puts food on the table? If you want to apply reductionist arguments, then ancient money is just piles of metal. Not like it had any "value" beyond what they collectively gave it, either. Do we have to revisit the barter system where value is traded for value to once again realize the reason money was invented? Fish for tools works, unti…

Whether it puts food on the table or not doesn't matter. People spend their time here, when they could be doing other things (or earning more money to put more food on the table). Ultimately karma has a certain value to some people, whether or not it does to you. Just as I might not understand why some people will pay 10s of thousands of dollars more for a car that, ultimately, does the same thing as another car. "intangible" does not mean "valueless"

Anyway, for karma to be effective, all it has to do is have enough value to outweigh the (equally intangible) value of the satisfaction of posting something trollish.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#125

Post by [deleted] »

figgles wrote: post #94
127 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only difference between money and karma is that we can't easily trade karma. Modern money is not physical, it is just a figment of our imaginations. It has only the value we collectively give it.

So, in other words, it's really important? Like, pays our bills, heats our homes, puts food on the table? If you want to apply reductionist arguments, then ancient money is just piles of metal. Not like it had any "value" beyond what they collectively gave it, either. Do we have to revisit the barter system where value is traded for value to once again realize the reason money was invented? Fish for tools works, unti…

[deleted]

Re: Trolls (2008)

#126

Post by mithaler »

interlagos wrote: post #91

I've been hellbanned here on HN on at least three different IP addresses and accounts...that I am aware of. Probably more. In each case nothing I'd ever said would be considered trolling by any rational observer. Here on HN, however, as with most communities where you start to recognize the regulars (tptacek, raganwald, etc), "trolling" is redefined to simply mean "going against the grain". There was one discussion t…

There was one discussion that I participated where I predicted that Apple would see declining profit margins due to increased competition. Remarkably this completely benign, seemingly obvious observation saw me declared a troll, and shortly thereafter yet another account was hellbanned from HN.

I'm curious--can you paste the text of that comment here if you still have it? It's possible that, for example, it was your tone that got you downvoted, not your message. Or it could have been the community perceiving you to be ignoring evidence, or any number of other things. In any case, this claim here isn't sufficient for us to judge the fairness of the response.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#127

Post by zerostar07 »

Downvoting is a sort of trolling too. People don't like unconventional opinions here. Say something bad about the late S. Jobs and you re certain to be buried. Even scientifically proven facts get buried sometimes. The problem is not solved. Let's try something radical, like, ban all adjectives.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#128

Post by [deleted] »

angersock wrote: post #6

Good post, but as someone who dabbles in trolling as a hobby, I'd like to suggest the following: Trolls are important. Trolling, especially as seen on places like slashdot/4chan/somethingawful/etc., can oftentimes be a mechanism of critique for ideas and rhetorical styles. One of the best things about the 'net is that, frankly, none of this really matters. None of it. It's a big joke. My twitters and my wikis and my…

[deleted]

Re: Trolls (2008)

#129

Post by troll24601 »

hooande wrote: post #74

I think the reason that troll behavior seems so much worse online is because most of us spend our time in environments where trolls are self-selected out. Assuming that most of us don't regularly deal with assholes in our work and home life, the place we're most likely to interact with them is online forums. I'm not sure that anonymity or distance are the driving factors in online trolling. Most of the assholes I kno…

I've trolled. I blame two things: frustration, and myself.

I would get frustrated that there was no reward (and often there was punishment) for correcting errors in others posts. It's incredibly rare to see a rebuttal followed by the original poster simply saying "I was wrong about that, thanks for the information." It's far more common for the OP to simply insult you, or mischaracterize your argument, or otherwise engage in nonsense as their response.

I would get frustrated that comments and posts are promoted on style, not substance.

I would get frustrated that substance was judged inaccurately; often resulting in people whose knowledge was either entirely absent, or only Google deep arguing fiercely with people who'd worked and studied the topic for years.

I would get frustrated at the general lack of respect for truth, for civility, and for each other.

I would get frustrated at pedantry.

I would get frustrated at double-standards and hypocrisy, with people posting uncited nonsense, but demanding citations from their opponents.

I would get frustrated at debate opponents who would willfully misrepresent their opponents side in the argument.

I would get frustrated that semi-plausibly-deniable passive-aggressiveness was accepted by moderators, but direct responses to that aggression were not.

I would get frustrated that sticky lies beat dry truth every time, in votes and moderation.

And once I got frustrated, I lost respect for the forums, but I didn't leave them. I liked what they could be, but not what they were.

So I trolled. I disrespected people who, I felt, were being assholes in one way or another and thus "had it coming".

This wasn't a great response, and for this I blame myself.

I should've done something more constructive with my time. The forums are going to revert to the mean with or without my help; there's no need for me to accelerate the reversion.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#130

Post by zerostar07 »

scott_s wrote: post #118
interlagos wrote: post #91

I've been hellbanned here on HN on at least three different IP addresses and accounts...that I am aware of. Probably more. In each case nothing I'd ever said would be considered trolling by any rational observer. Here on HN, however, as with most communities where you start to recognize the regulars (tptacek, raganwald, etc), "trolling" is redefined to simply mean "going against the grain". There was one discussion t…

Can you point to the actual posts? Every time I've seen a hellbanned account, I have agreed with the decision. In the interest of full disclosure, my suspicion is that the way you expressed these opinions ran counter to the kind of discussion people want to see on HN. I may be wrong, of course, which is why I'd like to see the actual posts.

Not that I care anymore, but why was this account banned anyway: http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ignifero ?
Post reply on HN