4 ms·

> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. Inflamm

by sctb 8y ago

> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. Inflammatory generalizations with no evidence like this count as flamebait, so please eschew them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

comesee 8y ago
I don't believe anything I said was flamebait. I could have provided evidence if it was asked for, but I was shut down and assumed malicious before I had a chance. For the record, here is a study on male chimpanzees: https://today.duke.edu/2016/10/ChimpanzeeDominance https://today.duke.edu/2016/10/ChimpanzeeDominance but the information I provided is generally true for all apes and is accepted amongst biologists. Males tend to challenge higher ranking males. Maybe it's inflammatory but it's true, and it's relevant to the discussion at hand.
- sctb 8y ago
  > Males tend to challenge higher ranking males. You're making an astoundingly general claim and chimpanzees are not going to back it up. I understand that you might disagree, but there are community standards of discourse here that are not being met and we need you to work on that if you're going to comment.
  - comesee 8y ago
    I didn't have time to dig up more studies but I certainly could if I was paid to. My claim is true and all research on this topic has overwhelmingly confirmed my claim on male group behavior in apes, humans included. In any case I've acted in good faith to contribute positively to the discourse. I haven't antagonized anyone and I've provided relevant new information that might shine new light on the discussion at hand. If anyone isn't meeting the standards of civil discourse, it's you and whoever flagged my comment. You'd think people on HN would be curious about new ideas. Instead all potential positive discourse is shut down due to a single individual's subjective judgment of what is inflammatory, despite it being scientific consensus. It's clear this isn't a space for civil discourse amongst reasonable people.
    - dang 8y ago
      The problem is that they aren't new ideas in the sense that matters here. They fall into very well-grooved grooves and we know from experience where those lead. It isn't groovy. When we moderate HN like this, we don't mean to imply that you weren't posting in good faith. We're just being vigilant about what is known to cause flamewars. Flamewars are the #1 problem here because they consume everything they touch and can easily lead to the death-by-fire of the forum. We're basically just being Smokey Bear, or Smoky Bear's ranger friend. It's interesting to observe that the above holds true even if you're right in everything you said. The old question "would you rather be right or alive?" applies here.
      - comesee 8y ago
        What would be new in the sense that matters? I think it was a natural flow of discussion: someone gives their perspective on an event, another person shares a related scientific fact that supports that perspective. You aren't being clear, instead you are throwing out abstract words like flamewar, flamebait, groovy, etc. I'm not getting the memo. Please be specific, what exactly was wrong with that post? Do you have a standardized list of topics that you guys censor for fear of flamewars? Can you share that list with the community? If not, this seems arbitrary, illiberal, anti-intellectual, dictatorial.
        dang 8y ago
        Sorry, but this is the classic legalistic gambit of the troll. It's not hard to figure out the intended use of the site. If you don't want to use it that way, please don't post here and please don't make new accounts to get around the restrictions.
        comesee 8y ago
        What is legalistic gambit of the troll? Are you calling me a troll? Look at my history, does that bear out? Now you're telling me not to use the site? I'm sitting here taking my time trying to be as precise as possible with my thoughts. How can I make it any more clear I'm acting in good faith? I'm rapidly becoming more and more confused about this entire thread and neither you nor sctb have been specific, that is clear for anyone to see. Your refusal to be specific when I've directly asked you to clarify is especially worrisome. Please really try to empathize with me here, how would you feel if you were in my position? I'm trying to engage honestly here.

by sctb 8y ago

comesee 8y ago

I don't believe anything I said was flamebait. I could have provided evidence if it was asked for, but I was shut down and assumed malicious before I had a chance. For the record, here is a study on male chimpanzees: https://today.duke.edu/2016/10/ChimpanzeeDominance https://today.duke.edu/2016/10/ChimpanzeeDominance but the information I provided is generally true for all apes and is accepted amongst biologists. Males tend to challenge higher ranking males. Maybe it's inflammatory but it's true, and it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

sctb 8y ago
> Males tend to challenge higher ranking males. You're making an astoundingly general claim and chimpanzees are not going to back it up. I understand that you might disagree, but there are community standards of discourse here that are not being met and we need you to work on that if you're going to comment.
- comesee 8y ago
  I didn't have time to dig up more studies but I certainly could if I was paid to. My claim is true and all research on this topic has overwhelmingly confirmed my claim on male group behavior in apes, humans included. In any case I've acted in good faith to contribute positively to the discourse. I haven't antagonized anyone and I've provided relevant new information that might shine new light on the discussion at hand. If anyone isn't meeting the standards of civil discourse, it's you and whoever flagged my comment. You'd think people on HN would be curious about new ideas. Instead all potential positive discourse is shut down due to a single individual's subjective judgment of what is inflammatory, despite it being scientific consensus. It's clear this isn't a space for civil discourse amongst reasonable people.
  - dang 8y ago
    The problem is that they aren't new ideas in the sense that matters here. They fall into very well-grooved grooves and we know from experience where those lead. It isn't groovy. When we moderate HN like this, we don't mean to imply that you weren't posting in good faith. We're just being vigilant about what is known to cause flamewars. Flamewars are the #1 problem here because they consume everything they touch and can easily lead to the death-by-fire of the forum. We're basically just being Smokey Bear, or Smoky Bear's ranger friend. It's interesting to observe that the above holds true even if you're right in everything you said. The old question "would you rather be right or alive?" applies here.
    - comesee 8y ago
      What would be new in the sense that matters? I think it was a natural flow of discussion: someone gives their perspective on an event, another person shares a related scientific fact that supports that perspective. You aren't being clear, instead you are throwing out abstract words like flamewar, flamebait, groovy, etc. I'm not getting the memo. Please be specific, what exactly was wrong with that post? Do you have a standardized list of topics that you guys censor for fear of flamewars? Can you share that list with the community? If not, this seems arbitrary, illiberal, anti-intellectual, dictatorial.
      - dang 8y ago
        Sorry, but this is the classic legalistic gambit of the troll. It's not hard to figure out the intended use of the site. If you don't want to use it that way, please don't post here and please don't make new accounts to get around the restrictions.
        comesee 8y ago
        What is legalistic gambit of the troll? Are you calling me a troll? Look at my history, does that bear out? Now you're telling me not to use the site? I'm sitting here taking my time trying to be as precise as possible with my thoughts. How can I make it any more clear I'm acting in good faith? I'm rapidly becoming more and more confused about this entire thread and neither you nor sctb have been specific, that is clear for anyone to see. Your refusal to be specific when I've directly asked you to clarify is especially worrisome. Please really try to empathize with me here, how would you feel if you were in my position? I'm trying to engage honestly here.