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

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#651

Post by chris_wot » Sun, Apr 05, 2015, 2:32 AM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #602

chris_wot wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that's the goal of this new guideline.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#652

Post by Retra » Sun, Apr 05, 2015, 2:48 AM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #606

JoshTriplett wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You end up with defect-defect in the prisoner's dilemma only in theory. In practice, you tend to get mutual cooperation. The prisoner's dilemma is an incomplete picture of human rationality. It assumes you are playing against an agent you can't actually identify with.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#653

Post by eropple » Sun, Apr 05, 2015, 3:09 AM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #602

chris_wot wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Speaking just for me: I've never downvoted somebody for liking JavaScript or approving of SPAs, though I disagree with the first and cringe at the second. But I've downvoted you enough to recognize your username because a ton of your posts sound like you're looking for a fight. Your behavior is regularly (and elsewhere in this thread, even) toxic and aggressively misrepresentative of people who don't agree with you.

Maybe you should consider if the signals being sent your way mean what you think they mean.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#654

Post by sjy » Sun, Apr 05, 2015, 4:07 AM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #598

sjy wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of further derailing the thread, I wonder if there might be a more inclusive term than 'steel man' — I don't feel great about using that phrase to describe 'the best possible representation of a position.' (The issue is fresh in my mind, since I stumbled across the gender-neutral alternative 'straw person'[1] this morning.) [1] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/18.html , para 21.

What benefit would that bring? Sure we will be more inclusive to the people who don't understand that steelmanning comes from the (opposite) strawmanning, which comes from strawmen, which have been called so for centuries. Is a person who gets offended by that really the kind of person you want on HN?

I tried to express my comment in a way that made it clear I wasn't attacking the parent. I realise that 'straw man' is centuries old, like many of the terms that are now coming to be supplanted by inclusive alternatives. Of course using such terms doesn't make you a bad person, but I think we can all benefit from considering the connotations of the words we use. Even if you think the harm caused by non-inclusive language is negligible, in many cases it costs you nothing to use an alternative, so why not do it?

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#655

Post by seri » Sun, Apr 05, 2015, 6:20 AM UTC

whybroke wrote: post #349

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 have noticed this too and have a humble suggestion: down-votes should require a comment from the down-voter. This would have the following advantages: - The extra effort will slow down causal unthoughtful down-votes. - If there is no justification, the down-voter can be down-voted in turn presumably by a greater degree. - Any pattern of abuse can easily be seen in user profiles.

I like advantages (1) and (3). I have a bad feeling about (2), however. And there is one immediate disadvantage I can think of: the required comments for down-voting would dilute the average karma, which is important for some people.

One solution is to treat comments that explain down-votes differently than normal comments. That would complicate the system a bit but maybe it will be worth it.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#656

Post by oneeyedpigeon » Sun, Apr 05, 2015, 10:44 AM UTC

striking wrote: post #633

cw0 wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lost almost all of my karma on this thread and not a single comment as to why I'm being downvoted (-7 points or so). The original article is right that HN has become an incredibly negative community. Downvoting is the internet equivalent of saying "fuck you." So many people want to tell me to shut up but no one will actually say one word why?

From the FAQ: Resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

Shouldn't there be an exception to that rule? "Unless the original discussion is about downvoting, or about an aspect of HackerNews that would lead to a comment about downvoting being on-topic". Of course, there still needs to be something of substance in the comment.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#657

Post by ZenoArrow » Sun, Apr 05, 2015, 10:52 AM UTC

throwawaymaroon wrote: post #639

ZenoArrow wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But I'm trying to teach you something about how your constant search for a middle ground is in reality pretty condescending." Good. So why is it condescending? What do you find offensive about being reasonable with those you disagree with?

Sorry this took so long. I was rate-limited and still rate-limited before I went to sleep. >What do you find offensive about being reasonable with those you disagree with? To start, here it feels like you're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say it was offensive to be reasonable with those you disagree with. Now I can see, on closer reading, that you're just extending what I said about finding a middle ground…

"I'm starting to think maybe the problem is that you're charmingly naive (and I mean that well): you're a genuinely positive person with thick skin and an earnest desire to communicate."

That's one of the highest compliments I've ever received! Even naïve sounds heroic to me in the way you put it. Thank you very much!

"Maybe today that reacted badly with a gruff and grumbling persona"

Maybe, but it wasn't completely uncalled for. For what it's worth, I understood the risk of asking for clarity with a leading question, it's not the first time it has backfired. Sometimes I forget people need to vent freely, as I often want to cut to the core of the matter. It's possibly a sign of impatience, I'll try to give people more time in the future.

To be clear, whilst I certainly do desire peaceful resolution of conflict, I'm also interested in the truth. Whilst all truth is subjective, it should bear to stand up to a certain amount of scrutiny. You're quite right that mreiland made a level-headed comment about writing people off and subsequently got written off, my only real feedback was that such a response was predictable. The reasons given for writing off were slightly different (writing off idiocy vs. writing off intolerance) but at the core it's the same issue, in that to give is to receive in return. I don't know mreiland's history, and maybe he/she has more reason than most to write some people off quickly, all I can say is that it's a vicious cycle. I hoped some exploration of it could help change that cycle, but it didn't work out this time, no problem, time for me to let it go.

Thank you for your thoughtful response throwawaymaroon, it was very much appreciated.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#658

Post by exodust » Sun, Apr 05, 2015, 12:19 PM UTC

chaosfactor wrote: post #287

Wow, this post has some hard core moralizing in it. The whole concept that a mean comment is going to prevent the next AirBnB. That may be the case, but it's unfalsifiable and straight up passing more judgement. I can do without that, personally. I mean, you seriously won't let Linus Torvalds post on HN?

Not only that, but overly positive, glass always half full comments for the sake of guidelines might prevent the next AirBnB too.

Perhaps for those people seeking feedback who want brutally raw, might-hurt-a-bit honesty, a special flag can be set inviting all manner of such comments. I know I'd elect for that, and would be disappointed with anything less. Spicy internet discussion can flush out the pipes of a concept and invigorate thoughtful discussion quite efficiently. It can also derail, but it's worth the risk IMHO.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#659

Post by mkr-hn » Sun, Apr 05, 2015, 1:12 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #504

protomyth wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"you shouldn't sound like a caricature of that position unless all advocates of that position sound equally ridiculous" No, you owe it to yourself to make the best possible argument for the other side's position. It might still sound ridiculous in the end, but you really want to nail it and understand the argument. If for no other reason to expand your thinking on your side. Sadly, you probably should also understand…

> No, you owe it to yourself to make the best possible argument for the other side's position. It might still sound ridiculous in the end, but you really want to nail it and understand the argument. If for no other reason to expand your thinking on your side. I think we're saying the same thing. I was suggesting that in some cases, the arguments really don't hold water at all, and there's no way to make them sound ot…

Sometimes, the best thing to do is repeat someone's ridiculous view back to them. Most of the time, I get "yes, that's correct" back and can be sure there's no point in continuing. Saves time and energy.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#660

Post by lobo_tuerto » Sun, Apr 05, 2015, 4:37 PM UTC

Also, one should never take anything too personal. Even if the critique is somewhat mean, try to extract what the critique is about and move along.

You will learn to grow a thick skin, but also, to absorb any useful feedback from whatever source it might come from.