3 ms·
+1. Oh how I wish people weren't forcing me to read the endless qualifications and attempts at hedging. Just say what you have to say.
by maxaf 11y ago
+1. Oh how I wish people weren't forcing me to read the endless qualifications and attempts at hedging. Just say what you have to say.
- nothrabannosir 11y agoI have learned through crystal clear negative reinforcement that criticism on HN will be attacked on the most ridiculous, minor, red herring points imaginable. If you don't preface your comment with about half a page of disclaimers, prepare for three comments addressing inane edge cases and posing unrealistic demands. Id love to be more curt. But a deep thread-war is the death of every comment, so preempting every possible rebuttal is your only choice. And on HN, every rebuttal is possible.
- maxaf 11y agoI hereby propose that we rename ourselves to Lawyer News, seeing how that's the kind of behavior we encourage here.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- marssaxman 11y agoThat is the kind of behavior encouraged by an engineering discipline. Our rules are even more strict than the ones lawyers deal with.
- mbrock 11y agoIt's related to a paradigm I refer to as "Disagreement As The Engine Of Conversation State", or DATEOCS. Basically, in order to react to something someone else said, you identify something that it's possible to disagree with or call into question.
- brobinson 11y agoThis is why I generally prefer anonymous discussion forums (mainly chan-style ones). No upvotes just because your username has brand equity, no downvotes to censor opinions which go against a prevailing narrative, just raw evaluation of the content of each post. If something is good, it lives on by being copied and reposted. You contribute for contribution's sake, alone. The downside is that you have to manually wade through the low quality posts/trolls yourself, but I don't find this to be too big of a deal in practice.