4 ms·

I re-read the guidelines last week when the HN people posted that they were updated. Here's my take on why you are being downvoted based on them. 1) This conve

I re-read the guidelines last week when the HN people posted that they were updated. Here's my take on why you are being downvoted based on them. 1) This conversation veered into politics, making it more divisive. 2) Your response "Umm... no" to me reads as snarky even though you provided substantive, new to me information in your comment with a source. HN asks that in comments: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. In short, it seems to me that you veered towards snark when HN asks that we veer towards civility, especially about divisive topics. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

BeetleB 7y ago
Thanks for trying to give a helpful answer. BTW, when I said I may be violating guidelines, I was referring to: >Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Regarding "Umm... no", I suppose some people see it as snarky. I didn't intend for it to be that way, and at least in real world situations, people don't appreciate it if I start the conversation with "You're wrong!". The "umm... no" was meant as a way to lighten the effect of pointing out that someone was wrong. Regarding the conversation veering into politics, I'd buy that argument if the parents were downvoted as well, which is clearly not the case. I'm not the one who brought politics into this thread. At the same time, consider the very same guideline you pointed out: >Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Yet multiple comments beneath mine are accusing me of being both partisan and disingenuous. Not exactly thoughtful, and as of the time of me writing this comment, I am the only one providing actual sources/references. Who else is being "substantive" here? As far as HN guidelines go, this is part of one of them: >Assume good faith. I find it hard to square comments accusing me of being disingenuous and partisan with that. And obviously, there is: >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. At the end of the day, I'm more inclined to think that the evidence points more to HN readers of my comment as being partisan. I merely posted a fact and backed it up - it was not an opinion. And it certainly was not an accusation. And in a later comment, I even acknowledged the nuances - yes, the senators were possibly motivated by preventing quorum - not something. Despite stating that, I'm still accused of being disingenuous by omission. What am I omitting? (Mostly replying to you as you actually tried to provide a helpful response, and if I respond to everyone individually, I'll hit the post limit very soon).
- heymijo 7y ago
  Hey BeetleB, I hear you. It sounds like you are engaged in the conversation in good faith and are trying to understand why your communications are being downvoted while others are not. I can't say for certain why your comments have been downvoted while others haven't, but I can make a conjecture. Peter Drucker said "communication is perception." That has stuck with me. Why might this matter here? If an initial comment you made rubbed anyone the wrong way, then the rest of your comments in this thread are likely to be perceived negatively. This could be compounded by political preferences and group psychology. Again, I'm just making a conjecture here as I didn't want to leave you hanging. I drew on Drucker's thoughts on communications from his original 1973 publication of Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, and Practices. I uploaded the relevant pages to an Imgur album if you would like to read them. https://imgur.com/a/SYsuFu0 https://imgur.com/a/SYsuFu0

BeetleB 7y ago

Thanks for trying to give a helpful answer. BTW, when I said I may be violating guidelines, I was referring to: >Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Regarding "Umm... no", I suppose some people see it as snarky. I didn't intend for it to be that way, and at least in real world situations, people don't appreciate it if I start the conversation with "You're wrong!". The "umm... no" was meant as a way to lighten the effect of pointing out that someone was wrong. Regarding the conversation veering into politics, I'd buy that argument if the parents were downvoted as well, which is clearly not the case. I'm not the one who brought politics into this thread. At the same time, consider the very same guideline you pointed out: >Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Yet multiple comments beneath mine are accusing me of being both partisan and disingenuous. Not exactly thoughtful, and as of the time of me writing this comment, I am the only one providing actual sources/references. Who else is being "substantive" here? As far as HN guidelines go, this is part of one of them: >Assume good faith. I find it hard to square comments accusing me of being disingenuous and partisan with that. And obviously, there is: >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. At the end of the day, I'm more inclined to think that the evidence points more to HN readers of my comment as being partisan. I merely posted a fact and backed it up - it was not an opinion. And it certainly was not an accusation. And in a later comment, I even acknowledged the nuances - yes, the senators were possibly motivated by preventing quorum - not something. Despite stating that, I'm still accused of being disingenuous by omission. What am I omitting? (Mostly replying to you as you actually tried to provide a helpful response, and if I respond to everyone individually, I'll hit the post limit very soon).

heymijo 7y ago
Hey BeetleB, I hear you. It sounds like you are engaged in the conversation in good faith and are trying to understand why your communications are being downvoted while others are not. I can't say for certain why your comments have been downvoted while others haven't, but I can make a conjecture. Peter Drucker said "communication is perception." That has stuck with me. Why might this matter here? If an initial comment you made rubbed anyone the wrong way, then the rest of your comments in this thread are likely to be perceived negatively. This could be compounded by political preferences and group psychology. Again, I'm just making a conjecture here as I didn't want to leave you hanging. I drew on Drucker's thoughts on communications from his original 1973 publication of Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, and Practices. I uploaded the relevant pages to an Imgur album if you would like to read them. https://imgur.com/a/SYsuFu0 https://imgur.com/a/SYsuFu0