New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity • Hacker News Board

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#131

Post by dang » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 8:44 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #104

dang wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the OP: Negativity isn't the problem--gratuitous negativity is. By that we mean negativity that adds nothing of substance to a comment. This includes all forms of meanness. That's enough for reasonable people to get the idea. Trying to force precision here would take us down a rabbit hole.

I think reasonable people can disagree about what adds substance to a comment.

Oh, no question. But by "getting the idea" I mean the intent. Reasonable people are always going to differ on the precise meaning of these terms. That doesn't need to be a problem. If everyone makes a good-faith effort to avoid gratuitous negativity however they best understand that, HN will be fine.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#132

Post by reitanqild » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 8:44 PM UTC

dman wrote: post #86

cheald wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Try saying anything critical about Apple and see if this strategy works out in practice.

I've been pointing out problems with Apple and seen little punishment.

Then again I am kind of thoughtful when I do and often make sure to point out that I like Apple, and recommend it to others, -I just personally find their products annoying to use for specific reasons

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#133

Post by throwawaymaroon » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 8:44 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #115

throwawaymaroon wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see. So any time a community displays well-known herding behaviors in a destructive manner, we can not discuss this behavior because that would be insulting and inflammatory. (No shit it'd be insulting and inflammatory. Sometimes that's what the community deserves, and to believe otherwise is to believe in human perfection!)

Discussing it is one thing, dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as "the hivemind" is at the very least not constructive, at most actively harmful. Where's the proof of this "destructive behavior"? How are we supposed constructively discuss a problem that hasn't even been proven to exist? Put another way, it's an extraordinary accusation (HN has a pro-Google bias) that demands extraordinary evidence. We disagree…

>How are we supposed constructively discuss a problem that hasn't even been proven to exist?

We can't even begin if people demolish all introspective criticism.

>We disagree that insults are ever necessary.

There's insults like "fuckface" and "idiot," and there's "You're nothing more than a rich white guy whose money makes him feel like his opinions shouldn't be criticized."

Personally I find the second more insulting. Basic namecalling isn't really my concern here as something worth defending. Describing the factual nature of someone's motivations and political manipulation is another matter.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#134

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 8:44 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #115

throwawaymaroon wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see. So any time a community displays well-known herding behaviors in a destructive manner, we can not discuss this behavior because that would be insulting and inflammatory. (No shit it'd be insulting and inflammatory. Sometimes that's what the community deserves, and to believe otherwise is to believe in human perfection!)

Discussing it is one thing, dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as "the hivemind" is at the very least not constructive, at most actively harmful. Where's the proof of this "destructive behavior"? How are we supposed constructively discuss a problem that hasn't even been proven to exist? Put another way, it's an extraordinary accusation (HN has a pro-Google bias) that demands extraordinary evidence. We disagree…

> Put another way, it's an extraordinary accusation (HN has a pro-Google bias) that demands extraordinary evidence.

More to the point, IMO, whether or not discussion of whether or not a hivemind exists in HN and, if so, what its features are is a useful discussion to have in its own right, and whether or not the characterization would be appropriate in some context with appropriate support, that kind of meta discussion is tangential and a distraction to substantive discussion on any thread that is about something other than HN itself, or the social dynamics of online discussion groups, or some similar topic, and so rightly deserves to be directed out of such threads. Failing to do that results in every thread being overwhelmed with self-referential disputes over the nature of the community itself.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#135

Post by switch007 » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 8:45 PM UTC

sprash wrote: post #90

This is the worst idea ever. I'm generally a pretty negative person for a reason. Negative feedback is necessary for anything to actually get better. And who or what decides what is "gratuitous". This is a recipe for despotism and censorship.

I agree. This reminiscent of a manager that wants to make a mark by creating arbitrary, vague rules out of the blue.

This a community. Was there a "we think we may have a gratuitous negativity problem" discussion?

Thin end of the wedge, perhaps. I hope not.

(From the article) "Too much gratuitous negativity might be the difference between someone giving up on a crazy idea and building the next Airbnb."

If negative, anonymous feedback here disuades and disenchants them, what hope is there?

Are we going to have a Safe Place section of the site, to protect applicants from all bad things?

Bad things happen. Mean people will say mean things on the Internet. Life is hard.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#136

Post by ZenoArrow » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 8:45 PM UTC

bengali3 wrote: post #103

dman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting, what if in downvoting a comment you had to pick a reason? What are all the reasons one would downvote something? "I do not agree" "I do not believe this adds value" "Inappropriate conduct" "I think you are being mean / rude" "Bad attempt at funny" "Off topic to parent" "Off topic to post" "Difficult to understand/Noise"

I don't have a strong opinion on whether that'd work, but it sounds a lot like the Slashdot comment moderation system. Perhaps someone with a good level of experience of posting on Slashdot can help shed some light on how it works out in practice.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#137

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 8:46 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #19

I suppose adding the guideline can't hurt, because it might at least make people more strongly consider their comments before posting them. Unfortunately, reasonable people can disagree about where the threshold is between appropriate skepticism/criticism and gratuitous negativity. Since "gratuitous" means unjustified or inappropriate, it by definition should be avoided. The trick is figuring out which things are ina…

Your comment is bad and you should feel bad. :)

Niceness/meanness is more often than not entirely subjective, relative, and arbitrary. Trying to create an objective definition for a subjective concept is going to end in frustration for a lot of people.

Personally, I started frequenting HN mostly because the community was not only smaller, but also more up-front about its opinions. I've come to expect and appreciate a blunt, direct criticism from the folks here, and would hate to see even the harsher end of that go away. The Theo de Raadts and Linus Torvadses of the world say "mean" things sometimes, but 93.8% of the time, those "mean" things need to be said.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#138

Post by cpncrunch » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 8:46 PM UTC

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…

A related issue is people downvoting comments that they haven't properly comprehended. Instead of asking "why do you think x" or "do you mean x" they just downvote the comment. Sometimes it happens with controversial comments, even when the controversial comment is based on facts. Sometimes going against HN groupthink (e.g. saying something bad about libertarianism) results in downvotes.

EDIT: I'm surprised that I got a downvote on this comment. I think that illustrates the problem.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#139

Post by jessriedel » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 8:47 PM UTC

webwanderings wrote: post #24

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…

You are right. I read this somewhere, something along the lines ... that when you disagree with someone, you should first make sure to repeat and restate the arguments of the opponent you disagreeing with, in your own words, before making any of your own arguments.

Here's one version, from Daniel Dennett:

> How to compose a successful critical commentary:

> 1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.

> 2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

> 3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.

> 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/03/28/daniel-den...

I add thoughts here: http://blog.jessriedel.com/2015/01/28/links-for-january-2015...

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#140

Post by Karunamon » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 8:47 PM UTC

nathanaldensr wrote: post #65

Isn't some cynicism necessary to balance out herd-like behavior? Doesn't cynicism help to temper what may otherwise become a rah-rah echo chamber? To me, this policy seems like a way to squash otherwise-potentially-valid criticism--or cynicism (perhaps of startup culture itself, due to Y-combinator's interest in startup culture continuing). Under the new policy, my comment could be considered gratuitously negative, n…

Is it? I've always thought of cynicism as a terrible thing. You don't need to be "distrustful of human integrity and sincerity" in order to disagree with someone.

For whatever its worth, I don't see this comment as "gratuitously negative". You're not posting just to get a rise, you're leaving people with something substantive to reply to by way of expanding on your viewpoint (a "this sucks" comment doesn't do that).