5 ms·

I would argue that stating the flaws of an article is substative. Seems you just don't like how I said it.

dang 7y ago
Ok, I see what you mean. Let me try explaining this a different way. The site guidelines ask you not to call names in comments. Your comment was full of name-calling, in the sense that they use the term. Could you please review them and take the spirit of this site more to heart? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html A comment like that one encourages the worst in others, and we're trying to avoid sinking into a downward spiral here. Downward spirals are the default outcome on the internet, so avoiding them takes energy. We need everyone to contribute. Here's another way to look at this. Name-calling adds noise to a comment (and encourages others to add still more noise), which lowers the signal/noise ratio. As the signal/noise ratio gets lower, a community like HN deteriorates. This process happens faster than linearly: thoughtful users leave because of the noise, causing the posts to get even worse, driving even more thoughtful users away. That would be a scorched-earth outcome, i.e. an extinction event for HN. Our job is to avoid that. A much better way to post would be to raise the signal/noise ratio. "Signal" here means adding new information, information we can learn from. In the case of your comment, that would mean pointing out more clearly, in more detail and more neutrally, the flaws you see in the article. If you can't or don't want to do that, or you just think the article is so bad it doesn't deserve the effort, then please don't post to the thread at all—instead, flag the article as one that you think doesn't belong on HN, and move on. There's a karma threshold of 30 before you get to flag, but it should only take a few good submissions or comments to get there.
- RyanAF7 7y ago
  Sounds like you might have a degree in communications? Well written. The comment I made, poorly spelled at that, had no name calling in it. Saying something is filled with ego centrism* or is a garbled mush* is no different than pointing out the overuse of the word "I" in a text, or the poor argument structure of a faulty conclusion. It lends weight and contributes to the discussion by describing the perspective and feel of the piece. Again, it seems as if you don't like how I said something because it lacked respect. That, I can agree with and in the future reconsider how something is phrased. Please, consider the brevity of my comment and it's efficient conveyance of my opinion on the piece versus something like this thread; overly detailed and descriptive for the single purpose of reconciling differing opinions on how one should comment on posts. Appreciate the input, and the earnestness with which you address the want for civility.

dang 7y ago

Ok, I see what you mean. Let me try explaining this a different way. The site guidelines ask you not to call names in comments. Your comment was full of name-calling, in the sense that they use the term. Could you please review them and take the spirit of this site more to heart? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html A comment like that one encourages the worst in others, and we're trying to avoid sinking into a downward spiral here. Downward spirals are the default outcome on the internet, so avoiding them takes energy. We need everyone to contribute. Here's another way to look at this. Name-calling adds noise to a comment (and encourages others to add still more noise), which lowers the signal/noise ratio. As the signal/noise ratio gets lower, a community like HN deteriorates. This process happens faster than linearly: thoughtful users leave because of the noise, causing the posts to get even worse, driving even more thoughtful users away. That would be a scorched-earth outcome, i.e. an extinction event for HN. Our job is to avoid that. A much better way to post would be to raise the signal/noise ratio. "Signal" here means adding new information, information we can learn from. In the case of your comment, that would mean pointing out more clearly, in more detail and more neutrally, the flaws you see in the article. If you can't or don't want to do that, or you just think the article is so bad it doesn't deserve the effort, then please don't post to the thread at all—instead, flag the article as one that you think doesn't belong on HN, and move on. There's a karma threshold of 30 before you get to flag, but it should only take a few good submissions or comments to get there.

RyanAF7 7y ago
Sounds like you might have a degree in communications? Well written. The comment I made, poorly spelled at that, had no name calling in it. Saying something is filled with ego centrism* or is a garbled mush* is no different than pointing out the overuse of the word "I" in a text, or the poor argument structure of a faulty conclusion. It lends weight and contributes to the discussion by describing the perspective and feel of the piece. Again, it seems as if you don't like how I said something because it lacked respect. That, I can agree with and in the future reconsider how something is phrased. Please, consider the brevity of my comment and it's efficient conveyance of my opinion on the piece versus something like this thread; overly detailed and descriptive for the single purpose of reconciling differing opinions on how one should comment on posts. Appreciate the input, and the earnestness with which you address the want for civility.