5 ms·

Your casual and flippant disregard for the need to arms oneself with more than a single shot pea shooter is in direct contradiction with the second amendment. D

Your casual and flippant disregard for the need to arms oneself with more than a single shot pea shooter is in direct contradiction with the second amendment. Do you disagree? (and keep it on point) Also, my verbiage left room for you to correct, eg. " don't seem to", so it's not an accusation... yet. Also, the real discussion is in my other comment in this suspiciously flagged thread.

dang 10y ago
Your comments in this thread crossed repeatedly into being uncivil. That breaks the HN guidelines. Please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all, from now on.
- arca_vorago 10y ago
  Really? I am assuming you are speaking about "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. " First of all. I think that was a bad rule to be introduced in the first place. I don't think there was proper user input on that change, and the backlash was mostly ignored. That being said though... While I can understand my comments were not put in the nicest of terms and verbiage, I in no way became uncivil. Please indicate precisely to me where I became "uncivil", and please make clear your definition of "uncivil". Sure, I cussed a couple of times, but last I checked HN wasn't against cussing. As a matter of fact, reviewing my comments in this thread, I see nothing you could take as violating the negativity rule at all, unless you are applying an excessively broad scope to the rule that would set a precedent that would harm HN as a whole. I do think perhaps this part might be in violation: "Also, the real discussion is in my other comment in this suspiciously flagged thread." That though, is not being uncivil, and would be a violation of another issue, and I shouldn't have said that. It's too late to edit now though. In short, dang, you don't seem to have provided very clear reasoning for your comment, so I would like you to please clarify. I admit in retrospect this is probably why the article got flagged, perhaps rightly so, because it is a contentious subject that was/is bound to create charged debate. My comments were heated but not uncivil, and your insinuation that they were is concerning to me, especially when the other commenter at one point was making attacks on me based on my PTSD. If anything I would expect you to be saying this to him for that comment. Dan, I eagerly await your reply, as I have always tried to be a good commenter on HN, and I am open to correction if my errors are pointed out properly.
  - dang 10y ago
    You used phrases ("bullshit it doesn't", "didn't fucking think so", "your casual and flippant disregard", "Do you disagree? (and keep it on point)") that made your comments aggressive and personal. No one who's trying to be respectful would address the person they're talking to that way. HN threads are for respectful conversation, so please edit that kind of thing out of your comments when posting here. As a side effect, you may be surprised how much more substantive and credible they become when you do so. (You're right, btw, that cussing isn't the issue.) More importantly, you insinuated that a fellow user had violated an oath. That's way out of line. Casually slinging such a serious charge is the kind of thing that turns internet forums into a circle of hell, so please don't do anything like that here. I gather that you didn't mean to break any rules when posting, and probably were just expressing yourself forcefully about a topic you feel strongly about. That's natural, but if HN is going to reach the standard of civility that we strive for, we all have to exercise self-control re the 'forcefully' part. Other people doubtless feel as strongly as you do, have had different experiences that led them to different views, and—given how little information online discussions convey—may not even be understanding you correctly (or vice versa). That's a lot of opportunities for conflict, so interesting discussion depends on all of us restraining our impulses.
    - arca_vorago 10y ago
      Dan, thanks for taking the time to type that response. I am going to take your correction to heart and try to adjust my tone in future conversations, as after having time to cool off I think you are correct that I could have expressed more self control, which would have in turn created a better discussion and debate. I'm not jealous of your job of moderation, but I'm impressed with this interaction so I tip my hat to you.
      - dang 10y ago
        What a nice reply to come back and find here. Thank you!

dang 10y ago

Your comments in this thread crossed repeatedly into being uncivil. That breaks the HN guidelines. Please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all, from now on.

arca_vorago 10y ago
Really? I am assuming you are speaking about "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. " First of all. I think that was a bad rule to be introduced in the first place. I don't think there was proper user input on that change, and the backlash was mostly ignored. That being said though... While I can understand my comments were not put in the nicest of terms and verbiage, I in no way became uncivil. Please indicate precisely to me where I became "uncivil", and please make clear your definition of "uncivil". Sure, I cussed a couple of times, but last I checked HN wasn't against cussing. As a matter of fact, reviewing my comments in this thread, I see nothing you could take as violating the negativity rule at all, unless you are applying an excessively broad scope to the rule that would set a precedent that would harm HN as a whole. I do think perhaps this part might be in violation: "Also, the real discussion is in my other comment in this suspiciously flagged thread." That though, is not being uncivil, and would be a violation of another issue, and I shouldn't have said that. It's too late to edit now though. In short, dang, you don't seem to have provided very clear reasoning for your comment, so I would like you to please clarify. I admit in retrospect this is probably why the article got flagged, perhaps rightly so, because it is a contentious subject that was/is bound to create charged debate. My comments were heated but not uncivil, and your insinuation that they were is concerning to me, especially when the other commenter at one point was making attacks on me based on my PTSD. If anything I would expect you to be saying this to him for that comment. Dan, I eagerly await your reply, as I have always tried to be a good commenter on HN, and I am open to correction if my errors are pointed out properly.
- dang 10y ago
  You used phrases ("bullshit it doesn't", "didn't fucking think so", "your casual and flippant disregard", "Do you disagree? (and keep it on point)") that made your comments aggressive and personal. No one who's trying to be respectful would address the person they're talking to that way. HN threads are for respectful conversation, so please edit that kind of thing out of your comments when posting here. As a side effect, you may be surprised how much more substantive and credible they become when you do so. (You're right, btw, that cussing isn't the issue.) More importantly, you insinuated that a fellow user had violated an oath. That's way out of line. Casually slinging such a serious charge is the kind of thing that turns internet forums into a circle of hell, so please don't do anything like that here. I gather that you didn't mean to break any rules when posting, and probably were just expressing yourself forcefully about a topic you feel strongly about. That's natural, but if HN is going to reach the standard of civility that we strive for, we all have to exercise self-control re the 'forcefully' part. Other people doubtless feel as strongly as you do, have had different experiences that led them to different views, and—given how little information online discussions convey—may not even be understanding you correctly (or vice versa). That's a lot of opportunities for conflict, so interesting discussion depends on all of us restraining our impulses.
  - arca_vorago 10y ago
    Dan, thanks for taking the time to type that response. I am going to take your correction to heart and try to adjust my tone in future conversations, as after having time to cool off I think you are correct that I could have expressed more self control, which would have in turn created a better discussion and debate. I'm not jealous of your job of moderation, but I'm impressed with this interaction so I tip my hat to you.
    - dang 10y ago
      What a nice reply to come back and find here. Thank you!