4 ms·

The issue is there is a poster that goes by "ocdtrekkie" for some reason has post a number of times things that are not true and pretty much only posts things t

The issue is there is a poster that goes by "ocdtrekkie" for some reason has post a number of times things that are not true and pretty much only posts things that are not true around Google in a negative light. Not sure what drives it but it is not based on facts. Am I allowed to refute when things said are not true? I will post with facts to support? Perfect example is him posting all over that Google removed "do not be evil" from employee code of conduct. Here is a link to the actual agreement. Please read the last line and what employees are left with. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html "And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!" Now this is a factual matter. Not an opinion. So him posting something that is blatantly untrue I am not allowed to refute with facts? He does this same thing constantly. Just looking for help how to handle someone that does this over and over again. Thanks in advance!

dang 8y ago
Arguments like this are not as 'factual' as they feel to the people arguing, but are driven by conflicting preferences and emotions. If I like X strongly enough and you despise X strongly enough, then every time we meet we're going to tangle about X. Such arguments are repetitive, tedious to everyone else, and devolve into incivility. The impulse to do this needs to be resisted. So the answer to your question "how to handle someone that does this" is that you don't have to "handle" them, and we need you to let it go because your attempts to "handle" them are damaging the site. Occasionally it happens that a user fees so strongly about a company that they have to comment about it every which way. For or against, this is a problem: it's repetitive and provokes worse. As I've tried to explain to you elsewhere, you've crossed the line with this Google stuff where you're not having a curiosity-driven conversation, but rather prosecuting an agenda and inundating the threads. Other users have been complaining about your comments for some time now. Lest you think we're favoring one side, I've said similar things to ocdtrekkie. In the past, we've had to ban people who couldn't or wouldn't stop doing this. If you want to participate on HN, please remember the site's purpose: the gratification of intellectual curiosity. That's not an emotion that gets fixed on any single thing, and it flourishes with variety, not repetition.
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  Saying that Google removed "do not be evil" in a employee code of conduct document that we can clearly see is in the document is not a fact? Here is the agreement. The very last statement is "And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!" https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html How is that not a fact? My issue is just things that a clearly, factually, untrue like the example above. NOT things that are opinion. I love HN and it is a great source because we do NOT have people doing what ocdtrekkie does. But I feel things that are very, very black and white like the example I gave above should be allowed to be countered. Or better yet just NOT allowed.

dang 8y ago

Arguments like this are not as 'factual' as they feel to the people arguing, but are driven by conflicting preferences and emotions. If I like X strongly enough and you despise X strongly enough, then every time we meet we're going to tangle about X. Such arguments are repetitive, tedious to everyone else, and devolve into incivility. The impulse to do this needs to be resisted. So the answer to your question "how to handle someone that does this" is that you don't have to "handle" them, and we need you to let it go because your attempts to "handle" them are damaging the site. Occasionally it happens that a user fees so strongly about a company that they have to comment about it every which way. For or against, this is a problem: it's repetitive and provokes worse. As I've tried to explain to you elsewhere, you've crossed the line with this Google stuff where you're not having a curiosity-driven conversation, but rather prosecuting an agenda and inundating the threads. Other users have been complaining about your comments for some time now. Lest you think we're favoring one side, I've said similar things to ocdtrekkie. In the past, we've had to ban people who couldn't or wouldn't stop doing this. If you want to participate on HN, please remember the site's purpose: the gratification of intellectual curiosity. That's not an emotion that gets fixed on any single thing, and it flourishes with variety, not repetition.

jacksmith21006 8y ago
Saying that Google removed "do not be evil" in a employee code of conduct document that we can clearly see is in the document is not a fact? Here is the agreement. The very last statement is "And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!" https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html How is that not a fact? My issue is just things that a clearly, factually, untrue like the example above. NOT things that are opinion. I love HN and it is a great source because we do NOT have people doing what ocdtrekkie does. But I feel things that are very, very black and white like the example I gave above should be allowed to be countered. Or better yet just NOT allowed.