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

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#601

Post by sebastianconcpt » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 2:33 PM UTC

Udo wrote: post #8

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…

Yes I can count with one hand the people that consistently uses the Principle of Charity.

And the saddest part is not seeing the interlocutor full of himself and completely ignoring the fact that, by not using this principle, he makes his own argument weaker (showing that his intelligence didn't reached those heights).

The saddest part is the public false victory because depending on the peers (audience), he will likely be perceived as in a stronger position when the opposite is true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#602

Post by tomjen3 » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 2:43 PM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #437

mreiland wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the interpretation, but no, I didn't reference the guideline, I was referencing the community. This may no longer be the place for me and if that turns out to be the case I'll gladly leave. > I also think you misunderstood the point the person was making with that statement: It's harder to make helpful critical statements when people let their feathers get ruffled, decide to treat you as a hater, and then d…

You know, if you see a bullshit opinion or statement, there are ways of refuting it that don't need the level of aggression you are showing here. Here's an example: homeopathy. If someone believes in it, then you can give counter statements without calling them an idiot. You can explain that you believe it's without basis through reasoned argument, and you absolutely should show respect for the other person. You don'…

>To allow for innovation needs robust discussion where you freely share your wild and unorthodox thoughts in a safe environment

That may be useful, but that isn't HN. If your comment is positive about Javascript (which is actually a good language once you get to know it) or SPAs that comment is very likely to be downvoted.

If you even find a place that actually allows discussion of unortodoc views, please tell me.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#603

Post by tomjen3 » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 2:48 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #354

mreiland wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the interpretation, but no, I didn't reference the guideline, I was referencing the community. This may no longer be the place for me and if that turns out to be the case I'll gladly leave. > I also think you misunderstood the point the person was making with that statement: It's harder to make helpful critical statements when people let their feathers get ruffled, decide to treat you as a hater, and then d…

"Does that make me closed minded? So. Fucking. Be it, I'm closed minded. I learned that from experience." I can't remember where I read it, but someone I believe was wise once said 'Our first approximation of other people is ourselves'. If I considered myself to be closed minded, it seems to be a burden. Sure, it would make some things simpler, but it's also quite isolating. Furthermore, it's too simplistic, no one i…

Somebody said that the people who don't care are the people who once cared too much. Perhaps those who now consider themselves close-minded are those who have seen too many stupid ideas?

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#604

Post by JadeNB » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 2:54 PM UTC

I've seen reference to this and other HN guidelines in the past, but the only reason that I know what some of these guidelines are (or even about their existence) is because of occasional mention in discussions. Is there a single source for the guidelines that I should be following?

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#605

Post by davecardwell » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 2:56 PM UTC

JadeNB wrote: post #604

I've seen reference to this and other HN guidelines in the past, but the only reason that I know what some of these guidelines are (or even about their existence) is because of occasional mention in discussions. Is there a single source for the guidelines that I should be following?

There is a link in the footer to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#606

Post by tomjen3 » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 3:01 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #222

tptacek wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also like the (related) idea of an Ideological Turing Test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test

That's a really good idea; you shouldn't just be able to restate the opposing argument as a devil's advocate, you should be able to understand all the arguments well enough to make them as effectively as any advocate. And you shouldn't sound like a caricature of that position unless all advocates of that position sound equally ridiculous.

I used to try to do that.

Then some people were against gay marriage. And I listened to their arguments - or tried to because they literally didn't have a single one based on logic.

So if I was to follow that rule I couldn't critize such people at all.

Which lead me to the following conclusion: all of these rules of debate are excellent when you sit around the tables in Oxford or similar places or the debate is held under the Chatham house rules with a selection process for the invites.

Outside, in the real world, arguments are politics, which is just war fought by other means, and should be treated as such, for the same reason that you end up with defect-defect in the prisoners dilemma.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#607

Post by solve » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 3:04 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #545

vitd wrote: post #490

I think I agree with the spirit of this guideline, but I have serious doubts that it can work. Here's why: I joined HN a year or two ago. I didn't go back and read any posts written before I joined. Anyone joining after today will have no idea that this is the way things are supposed to be. Further, I suspect (though I hope I'm wrong) that a rule like this could end up causing the same issues that people here complai…

> I think I agree with the spirit of this guideline, but I have serious doubts that it can work. Let's see. HN is experimental, and this is just another experiment. If it works, it will be because community members help shift the culture in a higher-quality direction. That, by the way, is also how newcomers find out about these things. Rules don't communicate themselves, but culture does.

Dang, what's the percentage of active / new users who visit the guidelines page? Can you measure this in the website analytics?

> Rules don't communicate themselves, but culture does.

At this point, you should really just copy the methods that Producthunt used to shape their community culture. Their strategy was perfect. In PH's case, it wasn't some intangible culture persuading people how to act, it was the founders directly telling people that being supportive and friendly is absolutely required, or else you'll be banned from commenting. See their 3 great recent videos on this precise topic:

https://courses.platzi.com/classes/build-grow-online-communi...

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#608

Post by tomjen3 » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 3:08 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #209

danellis wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole site needs rewriting and modernizing. Considering the audience, it's kind of shocking how stale it is.

That's true if you assume that every feature moves the community forward. But not all of them do; many features regress us. For instance: unlike on Reddit, there's no indication when someone's responded to one of your questions. As a result, very few arguments last more than a few hours here. I'm particularly leery of collapsible threads, although my understanding is we're about to get them anyways.

Counterpoint: unless you are on HN all the time it is often impossible to get answer to a question because the post is a few hours old.

Worse: There is no point in comming back and edit you post with sources because by that time nobody is going to see it.

Disaster: There is no benefit to writing a thoughful, well sourced comment in the first place because nobody will read it by the time you are done.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#609

Post by smoyer » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 3:08 PM UTC

My comments (depending on my mood) will often include "Snark" while still making a point. I suspect I'm going to get down-voted much more often if the community decides that down-votes are the way to enforce this. I don't mind being down-voted occasionally but I'd rather not be hell-banned - I think I still contribute to the community overall.

I (previously) used the average karma/contribution on my profile page to self-police by trying to maintain an average around at least 3. Any idea why it was removed? Will it be coming back in some form? Any ideas on other ways to make sure I'm staying positive on here?

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#610

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 3:08 PM UTC

Udo wrote: post #8

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…

Always interpreting what was said to him in the most intelligent light is the distinguishing behavior of my favorite professor from grad school. If people are constantly correcting you on jumping to the wrong conclusion, and telling you they actually meant something else, then you are not as smart as you think you are in that context. (Yes, this is indeed related to Dunning-Kruger!)

On the other hand, my favorite professor would often come out with an interpretation of what someone said that was levels more intelligent than what was said. Then the reaction would be surprise or even delight on the part of the other. (Sometimes, I think this was a deliberate tactic to keep the conversation on a higher level.)

One of the smartest men I've ever met.