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

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#561

Post by mreiland » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 9:18 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #536

mreiland wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, some would probably argue that refusing to engage at all shows a certain amount of respect for a person's right to have an opinion. The issue is one of using a word that can be applied to both sides of the argument. I was quite clear from the very beginning. This is about me not wasting time on people. It has nothing to do with respect or disrespect. Take ZenoArrow, for example. Why have I chosen to complete…

> This is about me not wasting time on people. It has nothing to do with respect or disrespect. Your first flagged comment says: > 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. So people think it's about respect because you explicitly said it was about respect.

ok, fair enough, I did say that. I guess my point is that the word is too broad and that isn't how I meant it.

They're not important enough in my life for me to spend my time worrying about. Or maybe I should say I don't get emotionally involved in anything they say at that point. They live in whatever bubble they live in and it has nothing to do with me.

And that some might consider it respect that I simply let them have whatever opinion they want.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#562

Post by vixen99 » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 9:24 AM UTC

kimdouglasmason wrote: post #424

Rah Rah Rah! If your startup is not winning, just pivot, and be positive enough, and you will inevitably win. Selection bias doesn't exist and was made up by negative Nancys. Seriously though, stick a fork in HN. It's over. Enjoy the echo chamber that this place will inevitably become.

"Negativity isn't the problem--gratuitous negativity is. By that we mean negativity that adds nothing of substance to a comment".

You obviously read this or you wouldn't comment. So can you explain how there's anything remiss about this statement?

'Nothing of substance' = hot air useful only for pushing up an empty skimpy container.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#563

Post by mreiland » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 9:26 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #538

brazzledazzle wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For those that are curious, brazzle and myself got into it a while back about his league of legends addiction and he's kind of kept tabs on me ever since. Are you being serious? >An awful lot of reading for someone who did nothing more than state an opinion about not wasting time on people. Not if you're picking posts at random. And you've done more than that and you know it. If nothing else you know it from the rea…

This has gone far off topic and it's time for both of you to stop.

It wasn't my intention to respond to him any further.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#564

Post by spyder » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 9:31 AM 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.

I agree that downvoting is overused, but I don't see it in the guidelines that it should be used only for guideline violations and if that would be true than what is the comment flagging should be used for? Or are they the same? And why is there two ways to mark a comment as negative (downvote and flag) and only one as positive (upvote)?

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#565

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 9:34 AM UTC

Retra wrote: post #448

Crito wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvotes not being for disagreement is an absurd redditism. Upvotes are used for agreement, so it is only natural that downvotes are used for disagreement. PG has stated in the past that downvoting things you disagree with is proper usage on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658691 I don't know if 'dang has changed this policy, but if so I haven't heard about it.

I would think that it would be fairly obvious that trying to assert that down-votes are not for disagreement is extremely futile. It's human nature to react to things they disagree with, and if down-votes don't mean disagree... then what? People aren't allowed to disagree? The only way to disagree is to actually invest significant amounts of your time? Sounds great in theory. But then a small number of zealots can de…

You can downvote zealotry and flawed arguments without downvoting mundane disagreement.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#566

Post by Meai » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 9:35 AM UTC

kolbe wrote: post #525

kolbe wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's just a minor mistake, but you have no idea how amusing it is to see a highly pedantic person try to insult me WRT to my ability to communicate correctly, while referring to my negativity as "gratious[1]." As far as the rest of your post goes, communication isn't just a series of code comments for everyone in this world. If every post were subjected to some Critical Thinking 101 interpretation of logic, we…

I know that's what you think. At some point, you picked up a very linear path in life, and you think any deviation from that line constitutes some form of imperfection. It's why you're probably great at coding or math, but suffer in some other areas of life. Why should you listen to someone who doesn't write like a robot? For one, it is boring to listen to people who communicate that way. Read some Gaddis or Pynchon.…

So you come here to experience life and socialise while others come here to get help at solving problems and keep up to date with the competition. Judging from the OP's submission I think we would all like to see more focus on friendly, factual feedback instead of gossip like discussions centered around personal opinions.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#567

Post by mreiland » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 9:37 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #327

mreiland wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

What I like to tell people is this:

If you have to tell me what my position/argument/opinion is, chances are you're involved in a strawman.

In particular, I responded to someone complaining about people who dismiss others easily. I responded by stating I dismiss people quickly and will continue to do so and I explained why.

A few back and forths later and here you are telling me I'm arguing that HN should "ignore abuse and snark".

For those who are maybe a bit more middle of the road in these types of conversations. THIS is why I'm so quick to dismiss. I could respond back with "nuhuh, that isn't what I said" and let this stupid conversation devolve into a time wasting exercise in futility.

Or I could recognize that vacri didn't like something I said or the way I said it and came into the interaction with a negativity towards me such that he chose to do exactly what this thread initially recommended people do, which is to interpret things charitably.

And it is for this reason that I'm going to simply dismiss vacri as too biased and emotionally clouded to spend time on.

here is a concrete example of how and why I dismiss people. In case it wasn't clear to anyone.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#568

Post by mreiland » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 9:41 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #550

throwawaymaroon wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just keep talking at him. You don't seem to understand that he's winning . Everything you're saying just slides off him. He's stated his position and believes it's confirmed by how he's been downvoted and flagkilled. For what it's worth, I think he's right, I think that whatever you think of his comment, the reception was disproportionate; but that doesn't matter now: he's gone. And you jabber on and on. You find…

> And you jabber on and on. [...] You can't walk away. You hate to lose. Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. Moreover this subthread has gone far off topic. Please stop.

If anything throwawaymaroon should be commended for attempting to spend time I'm not willing to spend on explaining it to Zeno (and I think throwawaymaroon understands my thinking).

I get what you're saying, but it wasn't fair calling throwawaymaroon out in this conversation. If anything Zeno and myself deserve it, but not throwawaymaroon.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#569

Post by DanBC » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 9:42 AM UTC

mreiland wrote: post #561

DanBC wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is about me not wasting time on people. It has nothing to do with respect or disrespect. Your first flagged comment says: > 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. So people think it's about respect because you explicitly said it was about respect.

ok, fair enough, I did say that. I guess my point is that the word is too broad and that isn't how I meant it. They're not important enough in my life for me to spend my time worrying about. Or maybe I should say I don't get emotionally involved in anything they say at that point. They live in whatever bubble they live in and it has nothing to do with me. And that some might consider it respect that I simply let them…

I'm genuinely confused.

When someone makes an idiotic comments the options are:

i) ignore them

ii) call them an idiot

iii) explain why they're wrong

All these new guidelines are askig you avoid is ii). This thread has a few other people saying that criticism is valuable. But the guidelines are not asking people to stop giving criticism! They're just asking people to avoid either needless negativity or personal negativity.

You can still, if you wish, destroy bad ideas while staying firmly within the guidelines.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#570

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 10:23 AM UTC

hyperpallium wrote: post #279

wamatt wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.wordpre…

Theatre Sports (competitive collaborative dramatic improvisation) has the concepts of offer , accept , and block . Accepting an offer means to build on it in some way, as a real part of the scene - in the way you mean. A block is when you ignore or undermine the offer , denying it instead of building on it. There's temptation to do so for a cheap laugh. The uncharitable negativity of HN seems similar.

[deleted]