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

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#251

Post by cheald » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:36 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.

Well, I just checked, and my last comment critical of Apple (and not even charitably so) is currently at +97 karma, so I'm not quite sure the argument holds much weight.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#252

Post by dang » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:37 PM UTC

mreiland wrote: post #204

staunch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I'm quick to write off people and I won't apologize for it. I have better things to do with my time than to give everyone the same amount of time and respect. If HN has decided to be touchy feely than this most certainly isn't the place for me. I prefer actual discourse where bullshi…

There may be a misunderstanding here.

This guideline isn't about who you "write off"—obviously you can have whatever opinion you want to—and it certainly isn't about giving everyone the same amount of time and respect. It's about maintaining a minimal level of respect when commenting, for the sake of the community as a whole. As for time, you always have the option of giving people zero of it simply by not commenting in the first place.

Nor is this about making HN "touchy-feely" or, as another commenter put it, Panglossian. There are infinitely many ways to be neither touchy-feely nor abusive. It is not hard.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#253

Post by sixothree » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:38 PM UTC

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.

Maybe the button icon could be replaced with a word next to the reply link? Kind of as a reminder of what it means?

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#254

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

kolbe wrote: post #94

> Negativity isn't the problem--gratuitous negativity is. Is it just regular negative of me to say statements like that one are horrible, or it is gratuitously negative? Am I being a critical thinker when I say that, whenever I hear people make statement like that one, they are usually weaseling into some businessey doublespeak that roughly translates into "people like me can be negative, people like you cannot, but…

> Is it just regular negative of me to say statements like that one are horrible, or it is gratuitously negative?

If you'd just said that, I'd say "regular negative", but also non-constructive and useless and the kind of thing I'd downvote for being non-constructive. But when you go one with this:

> Am I being a critical thinker when I say that, whenever I hear people make statement like that one, they are usually weaseling into some businessey doublespeak that roughly translates into "people like me can be negative, people like you cannot, but I refuse to say that outright."

...you aren't engaging with the idea that you are responding to, but making an unsubstantiated generalization that is worse than even just directly inventing a motivation to ascribe to the author of the idea you are responding to, because you are instead doing so for other people and using it a base for a guilt by association attack on the author of the idea you are responding to rather than engaging with the merits of the idea itself.

> Or is that shallow cynicism?

At best.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#255

Post by pdxgene » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:40 PM UTC

+1. Yes, please.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#256

Post by wamatt » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:40 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…

This comment brings to mind the concept of the the steel man [1][2].

Steelmanning an argument means to go one step further. In addition to selecting the most charitable parts of another person's argument, one seeks to improve on it, by making it the best possible representation of the other persons position.

From there, one can offer their own counterpoint, to this improved version.

[1] https://themerelyreal.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/steelmanning/

[2] http://lesswrong.com/lw/85h/better_disagreement/

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#257

Post by Jimmy » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #198

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…

> Isn't some cynicism necessary to balance out herd-like behavior? No. In fact, cynicism can be a herd-like behavior. > Doesn't cynicism help to temper what may otherwise become a rah-rah echo chamber? No, it doesn't. It might add another problem on top, but that doesn't actually make things better. > To me, this policy seems like a way to squash otherwise-potentially-valid criticism If it is valid, on-topic criticis…

>If it is valid, on-topic criticism, it isn't gratuitous negativity.

We'll need some assurance that invalid criticism can also fall under the category of "not gratuitously negative" as well. Otherwise, we've just defined "invalid" criticism as being against the rules. And strangely, the people in power are always the ones whose viewpoints are "valid", "true", etc.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#258

Post by cheald » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

bdcravens wrote: post #155

happyscrappy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pedantic bickering is brutal because you cannot collapse threads.

Check out the Hacker News Enhancement Suite for Chrome.

Comment collapsing and new comment highlighting are both excellent reasons to use the extension.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#259

Post by MartinCron » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

mreiland wrote: post #204

staunch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I'm quick to write off people and I won't apologize for it. I have better things to do with my time than to give everyone the same amount of time and respect. If HN has decided to be touchy feely than this most certainly isn't the place for me. I prefer actual discourse where bullshi…

shit you guys, can't you go with the reading my comment charitably or will you hit that downvote button again, thereby showing your hypocrisy?

The whole "why won't you be tolerant of my intolerance?" paradox again. Cute.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#260

Post by Kalium » Fri, Apr 03, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

ignostic wrote: post #29

I'm very glad to see this idea turning into a community mechanism. HN has some great minds, and I love seeing the solutions they come up with to problems. It's a very technical, analytical, and rational community. Unfortunately, some of the qualities that make a good technical problem solver can also lead to nitpikcing. It feels like trying to find the bugs in an argument. That can be useful, but only when it ties to…

Bear in mind that what is and isn't constructive is not an objective measurement. It's a subjective value judgment. To some, finding bugs in someone's argument is a constructive thing - you are helping them by fixing their argument and showing them how to argue better in the future. Being better able to argue means an increased ability to communicate effectively with others.

So my question becomes thus: how do you define constructive? I, personally, have run across multiple instances of one person's constructive and actionable feedback being another's gratuitously negative useless nitpicky feedback.