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

New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 673 posts

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#71

Post by foobarqux »

Alupis wrote: post #18
ams6110 wrote: post #4

I think some examples might be helpful. I would consider a gratuitously negative comment to be some variation of "That's a dumb idea" with no elaboration, or an ad hominem, and such comments are pretty much always downvoted already.

Here's a few examples I know of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9015734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8938409

There are obviously bad comments, which most people agree are inappropriate but I think the problem is that there are another set of comments that the HN team thinks is inappropriate but a significant portion of commenters think is clearly okay.

So I think informative examples would point out comments that many people think are okay but that the HN team does not.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#72

Post by throwawaymaroon »

Quite frankly, I don't think this place has the capability to discern constructive "positive" negativity from truly pointless garbage.

Meanwhile the cloaked negativity where you're thinking cutting criticism but maintain a polite facade runs rampant. That's the toxicity I worry about.

When negativity becomes forbidden, it is only those with power whose negativity gets heard. They (read: you, Sam) only have to sit through negativity that's phrased appropriate to their 'position.'

This is a non-rule anyway. Suggestions aren't going to make the next gender hellhole thread any less toxic.

> Gentle reminders by peers are the best way we know to make the culture better.

Consider this a gentle reminder that you're trying to control the tone of conversations that can't be both polite and honest; it won't work, but that doesn't make you less of a meddling, controlling asshole for trying.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#73

Post by striking »

moe wrote: post #64
maxerickson wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we have extra buttons, let's have them be toggles like flag/unflag and name them something like "mean", "inane" and "misleading".

Yes, that's actually the direction I was aiming for, a little bit like the Slashdot system. I just think it's very hard to choose meaningful adjectives/dimensions (the slashdot set also quickly feels limiting). That's why I'd start with the most basic sentiment(s) first (positive|negative, agree|disagree, ...), see how that goes, and possibly extend from there.

What do adjectives have to do with commenting?

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#74

Post by pain »

Trauma-erasure. It is empathy-violating when classified moderators without logs claim emotional authorities to tone police by calling their efforts psychological.

Triggering. Why do psychotechnological toolers resist persistent "shrinks for startups?"[1] versus recreating private wars by demanding forward-looking(-locking) statements and then having our data disappear at trauma random.

[1] http://twitter.com/mikellsolution/status/571590631304388608

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#75

Post by throwawaymaroon »

itg wrote: post #25
firstOrder wrote: post #6

This is a horrible idea. The Panglossianism that will result from this is indicative of the bubble hype which will destroy Silicon Valley, Y-Combinator and Hacker News. In fact, this is the worst idea I ever heard in my life. So continues the descent of HN...

The guidelines aren't asking you to behave like Pangloss and think everything is perfect. It asks if you do have criticism then address it respectfully and constructively.

And who gets to decide who's being respectful and constructive? Hence Pangloss.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#76

Post by cheald »

dman wrote: post #26
dsugarman wrote: post #15

I think the downvote functionality is holding back the utility of HN more than anything else. It is grossly overused and very rarely for guidelines violations like it was designed for. Most people use to show they disagree with a comment. It's an awful experience and is the main fuel in a negative feedback loop that travels with users from thread to thread.

I agree with this. Conflating disagreement with downvoting seems to be mixing unrelated concerns. It is currently inconvenient (in karma terms) to hold dissenting opinions.

My experience tends to be that if you can hold a dissenting opinion respectfully, and back up your assertions, HN treats it favorably in the long run.

Holding a dissenting opinion without being willing to defend it with awareness of your audience's hostility to your ideas rarely goes over well in any forum, though.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#77

Post by chippy »

There is nothing to worry about. I do think it is indicative of a certain kind of new diversity friendly, "safe space", slightly censorious attitude which is rooted in normal human group psychology, keeping the tribe safe and secure and also swayed by whatever flavour of popular radical politics is operating at the time. It's nothing new. I wouldn't worry about this affecting Hacker News but if it does, we will notice the discussions becoming stilted, people will self-censor and there will emerge other places where people can feel more comfortable with their own voices. We are far from that day. That day might not ever come, HN is too small in my opinion.

I wonder though - how (if we take it to unlikely worst case scenario) would it affect how the behaviour of certain well known personalities such as Richard Stallman, or Linus Torvalds is viewed in the future where any form of negativity is censored against?

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#78

Post by cperciva »

rspeer wrote: post #43
firstOrder wrote: post #6

This is a horrible idea. The Panglossianism that will result from this is indicative of the bubble hype which will destroy Silicon Valley, Y-Combinator and Hacker News. In fact, this is the worst idea I ever heard in my life. So continues the descent of HN...

Good example, thanks.

Indeed, it's such a good example that I'm pretty sure it's a deliberate satire, and I'm very sorry that people are voting it down.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#79

Post by zk00006 »

dreamweapon wrote: post #14

It's not just a good idea for HN. It's a good practice to apply in one's everyday life, generally.

There is a good reason to be negative a priory in real live. Consider you start a thorough discussion on any problem that you encounter during the day. You wouldn't be doing anything else and die of hunger. In my opinion, people must be negative and quickly reject stuff that does not make sense to them. Forcing them to discuss about stuff that don't make sense to them is waste of time for both sites. For this reasons I would simply ignore negative comments and not ban them.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#80

Post by kelukelugames »

staunch wrote: post #39
Udo wrote: post #8

One of the most negative habits is in my opinion the failure to read a comment charitably (to make an effort to interpret it in the best possible light). Instead, people often tend to misread or miserunderstand what's being said, only to use the opportunity to write a "correction" based on that false impression. A worse flavor of the same problem is a misunderstanding that is then used to justify outrage or personal…

I think you nailed the real problem, which is that people have become so quick to write off anyone who ruffles their feathers at all. Drew Houston describes the HN feedback he received for Dropbox as all the motivation he needed to keep going. He also explained that he knew it was a hit because of how many people were saying negative things. Today though, any truly critical comment means you're either a hater or a tr…

Sometimes I like to ask a lot of critical questions because I care and I really like it.

Other times because I'm trying to rip it to shreds. It's probably impossible to tell for someone online which mode I am in.

Post reply on HN