291–300 of 673 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your post perfectly shows part of the problem, which is... you can give it, but you can't take it. If you're not prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt, why would you expect something different in return?
You missed my point, have a good day.
Let's start again from this, do you agree with the golden rule? What does it mean to you?
I agree with the principle, but in practice, it is too subjective. Reasonable people can - and will - disagree as to what is warranted and what they consider justifiable.
Now, if it was well-defined, that would be something else. But I don't see any way of doing so, humanity being such as it is.
I find that emotion and enthusiasm can lead to gratuitous negativity without even realizing it, as those things don't always translate well to plain text. Aside from posts, this applies to emails and texts.
Since I started this, I am almost never accused of coming across in a negative tone, even when I want to convey disappointment or other negative emotions. There's usually always a way to craft it so that it's perceived as constructive criticisms, and thus, well received.
Write with emotion, and proof read without.
As a bonus, I rarely make spelling or grammatical errors, except occasionally out of ignorance.
Some tips: If you write a response, before sending it go back through and edit it, think about removing unneeded negativity now that you have a fully fleshed post. If your post starts with "No." or "You're wrong." consider removing those and just letting your argument stand on its own. Consider using softer and more charitable words like "mistaken" instead of "wrong". Usually that's what is meant in most cases anyway…
Do you have advice how to figure out if someone is responding in bad faith, and what to do in those situations ?
EDIT: > Avoid the backdoor route to building a strawman, don't add unspecified details or intensity to a post that isn't there.
What if you must add details to clarify what the context of the post is ? ex .Water is liquid. I reply But Water is solid when below freezing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"
Slashdot does this. What generally happens is that instead of one argument about been downvoted/upvoted you end up with even more arguments about whether something is +5 funny or whatever. I've no idea how you solve this in the general case tbh.
Personally, I like the idea of having qualifiers on the downvote without one on the upvote - makes you think a little bit before downvoting... plus the vote buttons are ridiculously small on an mobile Safari - so having to click twice would prevent accidental downvotes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a sensible policy only until you have to define what is and isn't substantive. Since "substantive" tends to evaluate to "it changed my mind or I don't believe it to be completely wrong," it becomes a subjective game very quickly. Arguing something that many people disagree with outright is inherently going to look negative no matter how 'substantive' it turns out to be.
The post we're commenting on addresses this: this concern is why the guideline is enforced only as a community norm, not with code.
I mean, I don't disagree: I think this changes absolutely nothing. If anything it's a renewal of the old guidelines, not an addition to them.
I suppose I think there's some ambiguity into what is intended, and there's therefore some investigation into HN's relationship with negativity going on.
There's a kneejerk reaction to view this as an attempt to prevent people like me from spouting their usual hostility towards the tech scene, and I demand the right to be booed off stage!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they merely need to be substantive.
This is a sensible policy only until you have to define what is and isn't substantive. Since "substantive" tends to evaluate to "it changed my mind or I don't believe it to be completely wrong," it becomes a subjective game very quickly. Arguing something that many people disagree with outright is inherently going to look negative no matter how 'substantive' it turns out to be.
If not, then perhaps I should rephrase it, to convey the same message, but perhaps without it being a personal attack.
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.
A symptom of the problem is that such threads tempt so many people to express their opinion for the sake of expressing it. I get lured in sometimes too. But when I can stop myself, I just flag the thread. And if I need to feel better, maybe I go through and down vote comments I disagree with in lieu of telling people their political, economic, or ethical views are wrong.
That's better than me just adding to the noise and heat and lack of civility. Downvotes are socially acceptable. So are upvotes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I responded to the idea behind a specific statement, I did not make a generalized observation about the guideline. I even quoted the idea I was responding to. Perhaps you should practice some of that charitable interpretation.
I also think you misunderstood the point the person was making with that statement:
It's harder to make helpful critical statements when people let their feathers get ruffled, decide to treat you as a hater, and then disregard your comment. (I think that exact behavior is in play in this series of sub threads).
I don't think your original comment should have been downvoted due to disagreement the way it has been so I am upvoting it to balance that out.
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 de…