Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trolls (2008)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 321 posts

Re: Trolls (2008)

#161

Post by baddox »

libraryatnight wrote: post #152
baddox wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "None of it really matters." That's your opinion. Actually, it's more of a deliberate choice than an opinion, and I think it's clearly the correct choice based on the nature of anonymous online communities. Other people can choose to take anonymous trolling seriously, as if it were a person insulting them or being inappropriate face-to-face. But to do so is to misunderstand the idea of anonymity and online communit…

Anonymity shouldn't be an excuse for mean or inflammatory behavior, and it shouldn't be a reason to accept that behavior. And, I can speak from personal experience in dealing with people that have emotional issues that it isn't always a choice to take such things seriously. It wears on them. I don't think it's in 'the nature' of online anonymous communities to be cruel, flippant, and intentionally inflammatory. Anony…

I never once justified the act of being cruel. I am only saying that it is foolish to invest oneself into an anonymous online community because to do so is to nearly guarantee that you'll be hurt. Perhaps some people do have emotional issues, or even just naivete about the Internet, that cause them to unknowingly become invested in online communities as if they are real face-to-face communities. I think learning the nature of anonymous online communities isn't "automatic," so I shouldn't have sounded so harsh toward people who are ignorant or who may have real emotional issues.

I should add that the biggest problem isn't necessarily with insulting users. Something I see a lot these days, especially on reddit, is people clearly looking for real human connections through the communities, only to get burned. I think there have been several times where someone makes a highly emotionally-charged claim (they have cancer and need emotional/financial support, they caught someone abusing a child or animal and want justice, etc.) that the community rallies around, only to find out that the post was complete bogus. I don't condone the people creating the hoaxes, but I'm more concerned with the widespread tendency, even active desire, to invest emotionally in an anonymous post with absolutely no proof provided. Call me cynical, but I'm content to only emotionally invest myself with my real life friends and family.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#162

Post by nirvana »

teej wrote: post #137
interlagos wrote: post #91

I've been hellbanned here on HN on at least three different IP addresses and accounts...that I am aware of. Probably more. In each case nothing I'd ever said would be considered trolling by any rational observer. Here on HN, however, as with most communities where you start to recognize the regulars (tptacek, raganwald, etc), "trolling" is redefined to simply mean "going against the grain". There was one discussion t…

In the last 6 months I've been running an experiment. An experiment to make Hacker News better. Because I felt Hacker News was going to shit in several ways and I felt like I could help. I couldn't stop naive newbies from making dumb comments, but I could stop fanboyism and groupthink. I decided that I was going to take a different approach to commenting. In essence, I wanted to be like DHH - highly opinionated, stro…

You had 3.5k karma before beginning this experiment and you're a cofounder of a YC funded company! You're already part of the "in" group.

The first comment prior to this one on your comments feed starts of with: "Your entire comment is bullshit and it pisses me off. You've never worked at Zynga, so to purport that you know exactly what it's like to work there is bullshit. Your comment reflects exactly what Silicon Valley nerds think of Zynga externally. They think that Zynga is nothing but people refining skinner boxes for people to play in. You've probably seen one or two talks of Mark Pincus talking about "doing every dirty trick in the book" or something like that. Have you ever met him? Do you even know the last time he worked directly on a game? You're allowed to have whatever opinion you like, but this opinion is bullshit. Your entire comment is ridiculously biased and unreflective of Zynga internally or externally."

This part of your response is mostly a characterization of the commentator based on your own speculation about whether he's worked at Zynga or met Mark Pincus. While strictly speaking you're only characterizing the comment, this comes off as a personal attack to me.

Meanwhile, other people have been hell banned for linking to wikipedia pages defending scientific facts, because those facts go against the dominant ideology on hacker news (or that of the people with their finger on the ban button.)

I'm tired of hearing the refrain that reason and rationality rule the day here, when it seems pretty clear to me that if you're a liberal, an apple hater, an open source advocate who opposes property rights, you get a free pass for personal insults, but if you're none of those things, no matter how reasoned or rational you are, you risk being hellbanned.

I try to restrict myself only to commenting on safe subjects for that reason. I'm actually worried that disagreeing with you will result in me getting hellbanned. That's not the kind of environment where "reasoned and rational discussion" are really going to flourish.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#163

Post by nirvana »

tshtf wrote: post #148
teej wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the last 6 months I've been running an experiment. An experiment to make Hacker News better. Because I felt Hacker News was going to shit in several ways and I felt like I could help. I couldn't stop naive newbies from making dumb comments, but I could stop fanboyism and groupthink. I decided that I was going to take a different approach to commenting. In essence, I wanted to be like DHH - highly opinionated, stro…

In the last 6 months I conducted a different experiment. I turned on "showdead" and looked through the posting history of users with dead posts. About a quarter of the time, I would have disagreed with the hellbanning. If you're going to ban a user, you might as well be honest and tell them up front.

I have showdead turned on as well. It breaks my heart to see these comments from people who are trying to contribute. I don't go look up all their past history, but I'd say %75 of the comments are attempts to contribute to the conversation (even if they aren't great attempts or original) and about %25 are just comments that don't really add anything, but aren't really offensive or spammy or inappropriate.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#164

Post by tshtf »

tokenadult wrote: post #156
interlagos wrote: post #91

I've been hellbanned here on HN on at least three different IP addresses and accounts...that I am aware of. Probably more. In each case nothing I'd ever said would be considered trolling by any rational observer. Here on HN, however, as with most communities where you start to recognize the regulars (tptacek, raganwald, etc), "trolling" is redefined to simply mean "going against the grain". There was one discussion t…

I'll disagree with you in part while agreeing in part. I invite onlookers to apply the rubric from pg's essay "How to Disagree" http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html to rate how well I do in disagreeing here. You write, Here on HN, however, as with most communities where you start to recognize the regulars (tptacek, raganwald, etc), "trolling" is redefined to simply mean "going against the grain." I disagree with this,…

I disagree with the proposition that anyone has been hellbanned solely for posting comments that are in factual disagreement with majority opinion here. I see plenty of live accounts that manage to openly express disagreement frequently, and I possess one.

This is a logical fallacy. Simply because there exist an account that hasn't been hellbanned because they express disagreement doesn't mean that other accounts aren't hellbanned for expressing disagreement.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#165

Post by TomGullen »

I'm quite a big fan of a well placed witty troll. It's one of the most delicate, subtle and hilarious forms of humour. That's when it's done well however, not all trolls are like that.

Some of the heartiest laughs I've ever had are sourced from trolls.

My troll spotting ability is falling at the wayside though. I used to be really good at spotting trolls, nowadays I come across something every now and think, "Is he trolling?". And that's the beauty of the best trolls, they border on insanity but keep it just within the realms of believability.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#166

Post by switz »

HN is great because you can say controversial things and still get voted up. Most comment voting systems are often: agree (vote up) or disagree (vote down). HN seems to be more along the lines of: Does this comment make empirical sense or is this person talking out of their ass.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#167

Post by benvanderbeek »

boredguy8 wrote: post #79

I think one particular line got me thinking: Graffiti happens at the intersection of ambition and incompetence: people want to make their mark on the world, but have no other way to do it than literally making a mark on the world. Paul Graham has to make a caveat because it's too easy for someone to say, "WELL, sir, you have clearly missed that some graffiti is amazing. Banksy!" But there's a very important filter th…

I'm truly impressed at how you stated the point about Graffiti / Banksy while simultaneously explaining why it doesn't really have any bearing on the topic at hand.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#168

Post by Tomis »

wpeterson wrote: post #48

Trolling is the spice or salt that keeps things interesting. Too much can definitely turn everything brackish. But seeing some humor/sarcasm even if it's pointed mixed in with all of the serious discourse keeps it all manageable.

You shouldn't have posted something positive about trolling. Now mind the downvotes.

This reminds me of an old phrase - "fish swimming against the current gets electrocuted".

Re: Trolls (2008)

#169

Post by kaybe »

tshtf wrote: post #112
vaksel wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what does hellbanned look like on HN? Can't login? Can't post? Can post, but noone can see it?

You can post, but by default no one besides you can see it. To the poster, it just appears as a normal comment. Turn on "showdead" to see posts from hellbanned users.

So how would I find out this has happened to me? (Besides the obvious - no answers to my comments - of course.)

Re: Trolls (2008)

#170

Post by edw519 »

jshen wrote: post #159
edw519 wrote: post #147

Discussions like this remind me of my favorite scene from "Roadhouse", the best bad movie ever. Discussion forums are kinda like bars and hackers are kinda like coolers... All you have to do is follow three simple rules. One: never underestimate your opponent. Expect the unexpected. Two: take it outside. Never start anything inside the bar unless it's absolutely necessary. And three: be nice. Come on. If somebody get…

"Sometimes we hackers work too hard to make things more complicated than they need to be." tl;dr: maintaining an online community is anything but simple. I'm not sure exactly what you mean. One possibility is that you're referring to the hackers that build communities online who try to establish some sort of guidelines for behavior. If this is what you meant then I think I disagree. I've tried a very similar experime…

Sometimes we hackers work too hard to make things more complicated than they need to be.

I was referring to the hackers who use the forum, not the ones who run it. Sorry for the confusion.

It really is much easier and more beneficial for everyone to just be nice. Why work harder to achieve less?

A few strategies that have made it easier for me to "be nice":

1. Avoid long back and forth threads. Say what you have to say and get back to work.

2. Try to plan your comment to not be misinterpreted. This avoids much unnecessary pain. It's also difficult.

3. If someone responds negatively to you, wait and let others respond on your behalf. It's amazing how much better this feels.

4. Imagine that the other person has 42 legitimate reasons for not being nice. Let 'em slide.

5. Imagine that the other person may someday be your ideal co-founder, mentor, collaborator, customer, or angel. (Or more likely, your ideal co-founder, mentor, collaborator, customer, or angel is witnessing this exchange.) Don't say anything to scare them away.

6. Most of all: It doesn't matter! This is all optional. We were all busy working before Hacker News and will be busy working after Hacker News is gone (perish the thought). Lighten up.

Post reply on HN