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

Fidonet Rules (2014)

wiki.c2.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)

#41

Post by sedatk »

lmm wrote: post #6
sedatk wrote: post #3

Eh, it’s easy to put elegant and abstract rules in place, but it’s another beast to scale that rule consistently over all users of your platform. The ambiguity is just a cop out.

On the contrary, I'd say a self-evidently subjective policy like this one has a better chance of being enforced fairly than a legalistic code that usually ends up being twisted by whoever's in power to go after their political opponents.

That’s a false dichotomy. You can have your subjective vision along with a legalistic code, so the abuse in practice could be tested against the vision itself. Think of it like having a constitution and laws at the same time.

Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)

#42

Post by sedatk »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #9
lmm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, I'd say a self-evidently subjective policy like this one has a better chance of being enforced fairly than a legalistic code that usually ends up being twisted by whoever's in power to go after their political opponents.

I see this with my CTO coaching clients, I see quite a lot of values and policy documents. Often they have very long value documents no one reads or knows. Better have 5 bullet points everyone knows by heart.

You can have both kind of documents.

Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)

#43

Post by bawolff »

mongol wrote: post #39
bawolff wrote: post #25

I always feel simplistic rules like these or like wikipedia's "don't be a dick" work well for small communities but never scale. The ambiguity is really code for "follow implicit unstated behavioral community norms". When a community is small enough and everyone knows each other, a consensus can develop over what is appropriate behaviour. Yes people will push boundries, and there will be disagreements over what is go…

But does the situation improve with a longer code of conduct though? I doubt it. What matters when the community gets larger is efforts of moderation.

I think with a big community, consistent moderation matters more, as people won't respect it if it is precieved as biased or unfair. A longer code of conduct can help with that, but it won't do it by itself.

Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)

#44

Post by dang »

myth_drannon wrote: post #35
dang wrote: post #2

Related. Others? Fidonet in 2023 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36097617 - May 2023 (8 comments) The History of Usenet and FidoNet - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23678687 - June 2020 (32 comments) History of Fidonet (1993) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21669570 - Nov 2019 (75 comments) Ask HN: Remember FidoNet? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12216932 - Aug 2016 (3 comments) Edit: this…

The big dummy's guide to Fidonet(1992) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37531198

That's a great submission but the convention of linking to previous threads is to only include the ones with meaningful comments.

But I've added it to the list of candidates to invite a repost for, and if you want to email hn@ycombinator.com and remind us after enough time has gone by (say a few months, to let the hivemind caches clear), we'll be happy to do that. Invited reposts go in the second-chance pool (https://news.ycombinator.com/pool, explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308), so they get a random placement on HN's front page.

Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)

#45

Post by lmm »

sedatk wrote: post #41
lmm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, I'd say a self-evidently subjective policy like this one has a better chance of being enforced fairly than a legalistic code that usually ends up being twisted by whoever's in power to go after their political opponents.

That’s a false dichotomy. You can have your subjective vision along with a legalistic code, so the abuse in practice could be tested against the vision itself. Think of it like having a constitution and laws at the same time.

> You can have your subjective vision along with a legalistic code, so the abuse in practice could be tested against the vision itself.

When has that ever worked out in practice?

Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)

#46

Post by sedatk »

lmm wrote: post #45
sedatk wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a false dichotomy. You can have your subjective vision along with a legalistic code, so the abuse in practice could be tested against the vision itself. Think of it like having a constitution and laws at the same time.

> You can have your subjective vision along with a legalistic code, so the abuse in practice could be tested against the vision itself. When has that ever worked out in practice?

on Wikipedia for instance.

Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)

#47

Post by lmm »

sedatk wrote: post #46
lmm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can have your subjective vision along with a legalistic code, so the abuse in practice could be tested against the vision itself. When has that ever worked out in practice?

on Wikipedia for instance.

My experience is that rules-lawyering and organisational politics has very much won out over the original spirit/vision of Wikipedia.

Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)

#49

Post by boxed »

Marazan wrote: post #34
boxed wrote: post #28

The "don't be easily annoyed" rule is increasingly needed. An acquaintance was recently attacked for saying "hey guys" on a Discord. Then when he pointed out the madness of it, he got banned.

So what you're saying is that he didn't take being corrected well and was easily annoyed. Literally costs him nothing to adopt the culture of the Discord he wants to participate in yet still he was so easily annoyed he got banned.

Some points:

1. he wasn't "corrected", he was attacked

2. even if he was "corrected" that makes no sense since the dictionary literally agrees with him

He was attacked for being a male that knew he was male. That was the attack. Quite absurd.

Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)

#50

Post by Angostura »

mhd wrote: post #23
Angostura wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ans if you did it wrong, you would be mercilessly roasted on alt.fan.warlord

Do kids these days even know where Perth is?

  _____          _   _       _       _                             __        _    
 |  __ \        | | | |     (_)     | |                            \ \    /\| |/\ 
 | |__) |__ _ __| |_| |__    _ ___  | |__   ___ _ __ ___   ______   \ \   \ ` ' / 
 |  ___/ _ \ '__| __| '_ \  | / __| | '_ \ / _ \ '__/ _ \ |______|   > > |_     _|
 | |  |  __/ |  | |_| | | | | \__ \ | | | |  __/ | |  __/           / /   / , . \ 
 |_|   \___|_|   \__|_| |_| |_|___/ |_| |_|\___|_|  \___|          /_/    \/|_|\/
Post reply on HN