3 ms·

> Did you read the article? Please don’t do this. > Maybe you should try to understand Or this. Reminder: be civil, don’t be snarky. https://news.ycombinato

by js2 8y ago

> Did you read the article? Please don’t do this. > Maybe you should try to understand Or this. Reminder: be civil, don’t be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

naasking 8y ago
Come on, literally the second paragraph of the article addresses exactly the OP's point. I also wasn't being snarky, I was applying the OP's exact argument to his own critique of the article. I'm fine with sensible moderation, but holding up a mirror on a bad comment isn't an uncivil or snarky reply.
- js2 8y ago
  HN guidelines specifically say: > Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." Your first paragraph is just as strong with its opening sentence (“Did you read the article?”) removed. The guidelines also say: > Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. The final sentence of your last paragraph could have been phrased: “The point the article is trying to convey is that perhaps the pendulum on UI redesign has swung a little too far one way.” I get that you were mocking the “try to understand” from the parent comment, but your comment would have been stronger by not doing so. > holding up a mirror on a bad comment isn't an uncivil or snarky reply. The bulk of your comment is polite and civil, but the opening and concluding sentences are attacking the the commenter, not the comment. ($0.02. Just trying to keep things polite around here.)
  - naasking 8y ago
    Edit: I've erased this because I'm not going to debate rhetorical methods since this is all pointless. HN's guidelines also suggest avoiding unrelated tangents, so this will be my last post debating rhetoric and HN guidelines.

3 ms·

> Did you read the article? Please don’t do this. > Maybe you should try to understand Or this. Reminder: be civil, don’t be snarky. https://news.ycombinato

by js2 8y ago

naasking 8y ago
Come on, literally the second paragraph of the article addresses exactly the OP's point. I also wasn't being snarky, I was applying the OP's exact argument to his own critique of the article. I'm fine with sensible moderation, but holding up a mirror on a bad comment isn't an uncivil or snarky reply.
- js2 8y ago
  HN guidelines specifically say: > Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." Your first paragraph is just as strong with its opening sentence (“Did you read the article?”) removed. The guidelines also say: > Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. The final sentence of your last paragraph could have been phrased: “The point the article is trying to convey is that perhaps the pendulum on UI redesign has swung a little too far one way.” I get that you were mocking the “try to understand” from the parent comment, but your comment would have been stronger by not doing so. > holding up a mirror on a bad comment isn't an uncivil or snarky reply. The bulk of your comment is polite and civil, but the opening and concluding sentences are attacking the the commenter, not the comment. ($0.02. Just trying to keep things polite around here.)
  - naasking 8y ago
    Edit: I've erased this because I'm not going to debate rhetorical methods since this is all pointless. HN's guidelines also suggest avoiding unrelated tangents, so this will be my last post debating rhetoric and HN guidelines.