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

321–330 of 673 posts

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#321

Post by tptacek »

abalone wrote: post #318
tptacek wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post you're responding to is at pains to explain that the new guideline isn't "no negativity", which seems to moot your concern pretty much completely.

Not at all. You've highlighted the problem with your phrase "isn't no negativity". It's a poorly defined slippery slope of a criterion. Where is the line drawn? Banning personal attacks, but allowing unlimited criticism of ideas, is more of an objective guideline.

Unlimited criticism of ideas is fine as long as it's substantive. Critical comments must contribute something to the discussion. A reader unfamiliar with the topic of the discussion should be expect to learn something from critical comments, more than "a commenter named $foo doesn't like this thing".

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#322

Post by InclinedPlane »

MollyR wrote: post #294
InclinedPlane wrote: post #226

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…

These are good tips. I will be using them. 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 fre…

If someone is responding in bad faith, then usually you just want to curtail talking to them. If you think it's still necessary to continue the thread due to the "audience", then concentrate on facts and sources and just make the strongest argument you can then just leave it alone. Avoid trying to get the last word or being goaded into responding just because someone said something that makes you upset.

In regards to clarification, that's easy, ask questions, ask for clarification. Just don't assume.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#323

Post by mreiland »

Squarel wrote: post #303
mreiland wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ017D_JOPY&t=3m15s But I honestly fall into the other camp that believes respect should be given freely. BUT that lasts until you open your mouth and say something stupid. I've had "discussions" with people about whether or not MAtz Ruby had a GIL. You don't get my respect for holding that opinion and I have better things to do with my time than worry about your feelings. There's a cl…

The difference is in how you respond to the person. So, with the person who has read an article, or heard a soundbite and repeated it incorrectly, consider how you would respond to it in person if they were in front of you. Gratuitous negativity is being rude, and not addressing the argument. Perhaps they are holding that opinion because it is the only one they have heard. Did you ever change anyones mind by screamin…

> So, with the person who has read an article, or heard a soundbite and repeated it incorrectly, consider how you would respond to it in person if they were in front of you.

I would dismiss them and go on with my life.

> Did you ever change anyones mind by screaming at them that they were an idiot?

I'm curious as to why you think my statement about dismissing people implies "screaming" at them? When I dismiss someone I dismiss them. I have no interest in changing their mind or teaching them something. I am not here to teach the denizens of the world how to read up on subjects before speaking of them. I'm here for myself, no one else.

> Present your case for disagreement, with sources, and your experience, then walk away from the discussion if you feel the individual is not going to be taking it on board.

You don't get to tell me how much time I should spend on them before dismissing them ("walking away").

But see, I didn't specify either. Your statement about walking away implies you agree with me about dismissing them.

> Perhaps your well written, calm, take down of their points will persuade someone else.

Why do I care?

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#324

Post by dang »

stronglikedan wrote: post #293

One simple thing that I've found to help me write comments of all types in a positive and unoffensive manner is to simply proof read the comment before posting. I re-read all of my comments aloud in my head, and make necessary adjustments before hitting the submit button. I find that emotion and enthusiasm can lead to gratuitous negativity without even realizing it, as those things don't always translate well to plai…

Yes! And if, like me, you tend to see what you should have edited out only submitting it, there is a handy "delay" parameter in your profile. (Though kogir will smite me for mentioning it.)

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#325

Post by Kalium »

panic wrote: post #320
Kalium wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your ideas are good and your intentions are laudible, but I question what purpose is served in asking people to wade through excessive verbiage in order to arrive at what could otherwise be concise and direct criticism.

The idea is to give the reader a more complete picture. Often we skip over what we think is good about something and focus on the problems. I'm not saying you should come up with feel-good bullshit to make something fundamentally flawed seem like a good idea. I'm just saying that, when something is "mostly good but with one problem" we can learn just as much from why it's "mostly good" as we can from what the problem…

I was attempting to give a demonstration of where notions of completeness-of-feedback such as this can lead by wrapping what could have been a concise point in needless verbose complexity. I am reminded of "How To Make Friends And Influence People", where it is advised that any criticism be couched in complements because people are easily manipulated by the positive emotional rush of a complement.

I'd like to think that such wrapping isn't needed on HN, and people are able to separate ideas or code from themselves for the purpose of accepting useful feedback. It is possible that this assumption is incorrect and should be abandoned, as people often have difficulty separating the two.

I find that I do not agree that positive feedback is as useful as negative feedback. Being told you are right certainly feels much better and is much kinder to the ego we all seek to stroke, but it is in being told you are wrong where is opportunity for growth lies. If we're clever, we can even manage to learn from the mistakes of others and avoid them ourselves. I am uncertain that forcing a "more complete" consideration of issues that are in the main not relevant is likely to improve the level of discourse or utility of feedback.

I'm going to avoid the issue of one person's fatal flaw being another's useless nitpick - it'll come up next time someone tries to be clever with crypto anyway.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#326

Post by pain »

throwawaymaroon wrote: post #275
pain wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

logologicalities* u mean? =)) =∫∫ Hurting here :/ Neighborhood webwatchers still pitchforking to make odd ends meet, even though we can also log and filter listening memercy with that tool memery, hunting predates and predominates gathering emotional-intelligence memresistors.

I hope it helps to remember that this is a non-topic: it's not going to change anything, and so this thread is almost a ritual, about making appearances, saying our piece, and moving on. Gotta love community-as-immanent-voice maintenance!

The legal-rational-emotional ritual is a product of confession made rote war.

#Logy/moderation logy means we realistically have time and space (Self-determination made a ritual of goal-scoring and approval-seeking is really remixing and remaking research, experiences, expression, and development, dangerous because undeterminable if means proof war minus modus log.

I just want community-as-permanent-voice vs. superadmin gatekeeping ve. record-keeping. Sadly combinators for emotional structure are negated at admission for being pathos ve. pleasure, said by men who feel it is best to hotwire perfection immediately as racial capital biteracy static object-relational role model mapping works wonders to make cryscistable (crisis crypto?) structures.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#327

Post by vacri »

mreiland wrote: post #265
MartinCron wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, hypocrisy. You don't get to pick and choose who to interpret charitably unless you want to be a hypocrite. But here's the thing. That idea is valid even though your dislike of my post is going to drive you to continue attacking me unnecessarily. and that is why I have a tendency to dismiss people.

"Charitable reading" is not synonymous with "ignore abuse and snark".

Edit: oldmanjay - I can't reply yet, so editing here:

mreiland is basically arguing that abuse should be let through because of 'charitable reading'. I'm commenting against that concept, not chiding mreiland for being abusive.

However, mreiland is definitely being snarky - if you wanted to read this comment as chiding the behaviour in this thread, don't chop off the last two words.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#328

Post by frostmatthew »

tptacek wrote: post #209
danellis wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole site needs rewriting and modernizing. Considering the audience, it's kind of shocking how stale it is.

That's true if you assume that every feature moves the community forward. But not all of them do; many features regress us. For instance: unlike on Reddit, there's no indication when someone's responded to one of your questions. As a result, very few arguments last more than a few hours here. I'm particularly leery of collapsible threads, although my understanding is we're about to get them anyways.

> I'm particularly leery of collapsible threads

May I ask why? As someone who considers that the one change/improvement I'd like to see on HN I'm curious what there is to be leery of that I may not have considered.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#329

Post by mreiland »

shkkmo wrote: post #299
mreiland wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You did make a generalized observation about the guidline: "If HN has decided to be touchy feely than this most certainly isn't the place for me. I prefer actual discourse where bullshit opinions are called out as such." 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…

I can see the interpretation, but no, I didn't reference the guideline, I was referencing the community. This may no longer be the place for me and if that turns out to be the case I'll gladly leave.

> 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).

And I gave a reason for dismissing people that had nothing to do with ruffled feathers.

An observation I like to make to people in politics.

Do you know why those people do those things with absolutely no regard for how you feel about it? Because you're so biased against whatever group they fall into that absolutely nothing they do is going to be ok. You'll dismiss the good, you'll amplify the bad.

So why wouldn't they dismiss you?

The same can be said of the internet. There are too many idiots who think having an opinion is enough. I will not waste my time on them.

Does that make me closed minded? So. Fucking. Be it, I'm closed minded. I learned that from experience.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#330

Post by serve_yay »

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…

This is exactly my concern, fortunately stated better than I could have myself.
Post reply on HN