Live data from Hacker News

Trolls (2008)

paulgraham.com

291–300 of 321 posts

Re: Trolls (2008)

#291
post #166

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.

What about HN voting specifically prevents the first case (agree/disagree) from happening?

Re: Trolls (2008)

#292

Good post, but as someone who dabbles in trolling as a hobby, I'd like to suggest the following: Trolls are important. Trolling, especially as seen on places like slashdot/4chan/somethingawful/etc., can oftentimes be a mechanism of critique for ideas and rhetorical styles. One of the best things about the 'net is that, frankly, none of this really matters. None of it. It's a big joke. My twitters and my wikis and my…

One thing I have seen a lot of people do when teaching is to troll. You come up with a crazy hypothetical that is obviously wrong but hard to show why, assert it, and watch your students try hard to prove you wrong. Things like:

"There is no consistent legal principle that prevents an attempted murder charge from being prosecuted against someone for the use of voodoo dolls."

or

"I think it's perfectly Constitutional to require that parents, if necessary, donate kidneys to their children."

Both are classic trolls. However, they are fun, and they are hard to grapple with.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#293

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 agree that hellbanning on HN is completely out of control.

I've seen people (that otherwise posted useful contributions, before and after) hellbanned for making a rather tasteless joke. The joke was sufficiently tasteless that I can totally see a moderator suspending or even banning that user. But not hellbanning. Not that it's strictly worse or anything, it's just so utterly useless and childish.

This user had no idea that anything had happened, and he just kept posting for weeks. All that wasted time! And I'm fairly sure that if a moderator would have just told him "hey we'd rather not have people make jokes about dead children here" the guy would have replied "right, my bad that was out of line, won't happen again" cause the rest of his comments didn't seem very inflammatory or anything.

Instead the guy gets no message at all and keeps on posting invisibly. A regular ban would have at least sent some message.

... and then there's these things I've heard about people getting temporary hellbans? So people can come back all butthurt after realizing they've been tricked into invisibly wasting their time? That's the dumbest kind of moderation I've ever heard about, really. A hellban should be forever, or not at all. There is no such thing as a "hell suspension".

Re: Trolls (2008)

#294
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absent a 60-member supermajority, passing a bill in the Senate requires both parties to at least agree to let it come to a vote. Passing a bill in the House does not require it to be palatable to the other party, the Senate, or the President, nor is it required for it to have any realistic hope of ever becoming law. I didn't really mean for this to be an unpleasantly partisan post, just a statement of facts about the…

The Dems didn't even bring any of those things up for a vote (even on cloture), so how did the Repubs keep them from passing? (Actually, there were two Senate votes on budget proposals. One was an Obama proposal and it went down something like 97-0. The other was what passed the house, and it went down 47-53. Yup, the Senate Dems haven't voted yes on a budget proposal for three years....) > a bipartisan spirit of com…

The idea that Republicans are "compromising" by passing a tax cut really says it all here.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#295
There is something about the hacker news community, people here are a little less 'cordial' sometimes. It probably has something to do with the way people who are technological have to deal with regular people (when it comes to technology) and then how they feel they can deal with people who are peers.

This is good when it allows honest feedback about an idea and products, but can also come across as coarse sometimes.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#296
This article sounds like someone that doesn't understand trolls, trolling, or how to deal with them. Which is strange because he does mention the origins of trolling on Usenet in his footnote.

Anyway, he's wrong on several accounts:

> Trolling tends to be particularly bad in forums related to computers

This really makes me wonder what other forums that aren't related to computers PG frequented, probably not very many. Let's see, there's forums related to wicca, libertarians (the nutty kind), religion/spirituality, failed startups, "magick", seduction, conspiracy freaks ... all those topics attract significantly more trolls than computer related forums. Both of the "broader" definition ("assholes") and the sports trolling type.

> There's a sort of Gresham's Law of trolls: trolls are willing to use a forum with a lot of thoughtful people in it, but thoughtful people aren't willing to use a forum with a lot of trolls in it.

This is just false. Of all the forums I've seen, the two most thoughtful and intelligent communities just happened to be largely made up of trolls and people very familiar with trolling. It's because they won't stand bullshit and call people on it. Regular forums or forums that can't really deal with trolls always tend to plateau on a certain level of intelligence and thoughtfulness, which can be high, but limited. This is not at all a rule btw, most trolls anyone is going to find will be forums filled with screaming kids, obscenities and bug porn.

I just mean to say this "Gresham's Law" thing is false, sometimes the trolls are the thoughtful people and the ones that get driven away are good riddance.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#297

Well because down voting influences karma I'm probably posting 70% less than I would. I see HN more like a news site in which I sometimes share my view on something but not to comment or to discuss something (sadly). First I saw HN as something to have an intelligent discussion, but after a few "controversial" posts, and having negative karma, I don't bother. I only post something when I think it's "safe" to post, or…

Well I think on a blog post with the title 'php suckx!' there want be an intelligent discussion but when there is something about a cool project you sometimes get good discussions. For example the resent post about the Facebook Jit: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3348853

Re: Trolls (2008)

#299

One might worry this would prevent people from expressing controversial ideas, but empirically that doesn't seem to be what happens. When people say something substantial that gets modded down, they stubbornly leave it up. What people delete are wisecracks, because they have less invested in them. I am not seeing this any more on HN. This is the second time I read this essay, and my concerns are still the same: peopl…

I am proud of the fact that most of my comments are clustered around -4 and +4.

Re: Trolls (2008)

#300

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…

EDIT - Posted the above, and now, yet again, I'm experience 10 second or so page generation delays, which is another of the (the rather pathetic slowban) passive-aggressive ways that HN tries to force conformity. Perhaps it's just coincidental, but a test on another IP had virtually instant response times.

EDIT2 - Awesome. Hellbanned as well. For those who see showdead, you now know how HN manages such a coherent, consistent (yet superficial, often wrong, self-congratulatory) opinion.

Post reply on HN