481–490 of 673 posts
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…
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…
> people often tend to misread or miserunderstand what's being said This is like the phenomenon examined in this 2005 paper: Egocentrism Over E-Mail: Can We Communicate as Well as We Think?[1] From the abstract: > Without the benefit of paralinguistic cues such as gesture, emphasis, and intonation, it can be difficult to convey emotion and tone over electronic mail. [...] this limitation is often underappreciated, su…
I suppose it's possible there's also some sort of face-to-face feel with chat that encourages sympathetic responses.
How does a steel man reflect? How does a steel man reflect about problems? How does a steel man reflect about problem solving? How does a steel man reflect about problem solving if it is broken? How does a steel man reflect about problem solving if it is broken (and hurting to describe (something unsaid (difficult to (just block (list (listen))))? Robo swears robo cares a (alpha proto) race is healthier. Recreating r…
You wouldn't happen to know of a tutorial on how to understand all the things you just said, would you?
_You wouldn't happen to know of a tutorial trauma officially on how to overprotect apath all the things we said, would you shh seriality?_
My post was flagged[*] for using Robo Swears (slavery reflection) as a metaphor/mechaphor/medaphor for gross pattern recognition mapping (besides being free-form broke terms of pattern recognition service apparently).
After growing used to years of legal-information-technology replacing psychology I respond by asking for help against reversed transaction messages (of psychological currency as well as much a namecoin facing 51% grammar attacks).
[1] https://archive.today/NUw0D / http://web.archive.org/web/20150404003942/https://news.ycomb... / http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1428109271614562&date=%4... / ... / severe memory-problem rules force manual saving. Maybe http://fetching.io is a anti-psychotic-memory-moderation-meditation-medication-lock-log-doc-dot-dote if it were open source. dang.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm actually surprised to see people here complaining about downvotes being used to disagree with comments. It is quite common and gets really annoying after a while. Some of my comments in the past have broken the rules. Fine - downvote those. But quite a lot of them have most certainly not, and were written in all earnestness with intention of productive dialogue. And too many of those were still downvoted to a v…
> were written in all earnestness with intention of productive dialogue. That doesn't mean downvotes were for disagreement. Just because you intended it to contribute to productive dialogue doesn't mean that downvoters didn't think that it failed to provide a substantive contribution. Your argument seems to recognize that people can disagree with you on your message, but seems equally to fail to recognize that people…
> Your argument seems to recognize that people can disagree with you on your message, but seems equally to fail to recognize that people can disagree with you over whether the message was, independent of agreement or disagreement with your point, a substantive contribution.
Perhaps you started writing your reply before I amended my post to add "without a single reply to indicate exactly what anyone's problem with such a post could possibly be". I do realize that people might not be downvoting for mere disagreement but because they think my post did not contribute to the discussion, however without a reply to elaborate on that, it isn't very helpful. The downvote alone will not usually lead to a correction in behavior, since there is no way for the receiver of the downvote to even know that the downvote was given for that reason as opposed to disagreement, much less what the reason might even be. Instead, he'll conclude that this forum is full of negative people who downvote for specious reasons, or for no reason, and perhaps begin to become a negative HN member himself. That's a loss.
And since your next objection might be that I feel entitled to a reply from everyone who downvotes a post - I don't. But less than one in ten heavily-downvoted posts that I read, has a reply to indicate why that post was downvoted. I feel that number is low.
> Its not an aggression at all, and, if it was, it would be perpetrated by the downvoters, not the forum software.
Well, I don't believe the forum software is actually capable of aggression, heh. What I was getting at, is that it is an act of aggression by the site operators against community members here. And no, I don't have a problem in general with an indication of whether the community thinks a post is worthwhile or not - I do strongly disagree with this particular implementation of it. I would have no problem with, for example, just displaying the raw upvotes and downvotes next to a post.
Like I said, it's as though readers need to be "protected" from reading your post (by making it harder to read), which is patronizing to readers and a bit harsh to the author of the post, considering all it takes is for one random to downvote your post to make it happen. If a post truly is so offensive that people probably shouldn't be made to read it (racial epithets, bullying, etc), we have flag-killing to take care of that.
Greying-out earnest comments merely because they are useless (and remember that's in the best case) is over the line because the consequence of a false positive is too high and the threshold for it to happen (again - one downvote) is too low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a difference of opinion on the matter of downvotes. A long time ago I decided to try to treat downvotes on my own posts as editorial feedback. In the best case, it just meant I was unclear. In the worst, case I said something stupid. In between there are cases where I knowingly wrote something likely to get downvotes. I believe downvoting a comment that I disagree with is often far better for HN than expressin…
Side note: How do I know if someone downvotes my comments? On Reddit it's easy as you can see the score, but here? Am I missing something?
Here, you can see the score on your comments when you are logged in (your comments have a red asterisk and the point score before your name, others comments don't have either feature.) Additionally, if the net moderation is negative (net score is 0 or less, since score starts at 1) for any comment (yours or not) the comment will be greyed (moreso the more negative the moderation is.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being down voted because your posts are mean-spirited and not adding any value. You've made your opinion clear that you don't give a shit and the people have spoken with their down votes. Your posts are quite literally the definition of what HN said they do not want here. You suggested that this might no longer be the forum for you - perhaps that is something to consider further.
I hate being that guy but when I see people that are inexplicably angry I try to understand where they're coming from and that inevitably involves being a creepy internet stalker. I couldn't find anything that would concretely explain the anger but I did find that they seem to have a consistent chip on their shoulder, to the point where I had to stop reading because the negativity was starting to make me quite angry…
For those who can think critically though, the post he's referencing was about 1.5 years ago. An awful lot of reading for someone who did nothing more than state an opinion about not wasting time on people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment being downvoted so harshly is evidence to the contrary. And I get it, you're going to explain to me why my "tone" or some other such thing is the reason it's getting downvoted. But here's the thing. I don't give a shit. internet points aren't my thing. But what I do know is that I gave a "straightforward honest" response and it got downvoted to hell by the very people asking for others to "be charitable".…
LOL. You're being downvoted because you're not even engaging with my argument, tone is the least of your problems here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say comment or post I said people. See, this is why people get dismissed, because they do things like quote me and then attack something I never said.
So you write off people, but not what they say? Since this comment was made in the context of HN, I assume your avenue for determining if you're going to write them off is their posts and comments.
no good deed ever goes unpunished, eh?
Further, I suspect (though I hope I'm wrong) that a rule like this could end up causing the same issues that people here complain about with Stack Overflow. Namely, we'll end up with a brigade of people who feel it's their job to keep the "gratuitous negativity" to a minimum. The only problem is that everyone will have a different idea of what constitutes "gratuitous". But I hope to be proven wrong!