4 ms·

> I think the guidelines are a great way of encouraging us all to be more thoughtful to others comments, and have noticed a difference in the way I might commen

> I think the guidelines are a great way of encouraging us all to be more thoughtful to others comments, and have noticed a difference in the way I might comment HN. The guidelines are somewhat of a joke, and are only followed (even by mods) when it is convenient to do so. For example, I've been repremanded in the past by our supreme leader dang for posting comments like "do you have a source for that?", because he assumed it was too hostile while he completely ignored his own 'hacker' 'news' guideline of 'assume good faith' (I was literally asking someone to source the information/argument they posted here.. but hey good job on completely derailing that discussion dang!)

saagarjha 7y ago
"do you have a source for that?", especially when phrased that way, is a statement made in bad faith, because it indicates that you believe that there's a chance the statement is unsourced (as opposed to "can you please cite this?").
- 18pfsmt 7y ago
  I find it very difficult to believe that is a direct quotation from dang. Not only that, your parent called dang "supreme leader" (i.e. dictator, guilty of atrocities). This is clearly absurd and hyperbolic verbiage. Extremely "colorful" language is modern rhetoric of the worst kind.
dang 7y ago
Where did I do that?
- cmroanirgo 7y ago
  Ironically, the source of said admonishment wasn't forthcoming, by GP... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19984428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19984428 > Ok, but "got any sources for that?" is a rather unsubstantive contribution, and then going on tilt about getting downvoted breaks the site guidelines outright. Would you mind raising the signal/noise ratio of what you post here? It seems the attempt to correct a low "signal / noise ratio", in this instance, seems to be back firing.
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean, the link you posted showed itself to be 100% accurate with the claim.
    - dang 7y ago
      The issue in that case was more the added bit about downvotes, which broke the site guidelines.
      - celticmusic 7y ago
        The claim of the other poster was accurate. The question of whether you were being fair or not doesn't change that.
        dang 7y ago
        It wasn't accurate. They mentioned the lesser part of why I moderated the comment and omitted the greater part, which is what most people do when telling a story about how we suppressed them unfairly. That's presumably why such stories never come with links, which would allow readers to make up their own minds about what happened.
        craftyguy 7y ago
        > That's presumably why such stories never come with links No, I didn't include a link because I was posting from my phone, and "hacker" "news" doesn't include a sane way to search through thread history for specific comments. I'm glad someone else went through the trouble. But hey, you're free to continue to not assume good faith, right?
        dang 7y ago
        I said most people and presumably as a way of not jumping to that conclusion about you. The pattern in general is very consistent. But I can see how it would be annoying to read that, if your preference really was to provide a link.

saagarjha 7y ago

"do you have a source for that?", especially when phrased that way, is a statement made in bad faith, because it indicates that you believe that there's a chance the statement is unsourced (as opposed to "can you please cite this?").

18pfsmt 7y ago
I find it very difficult to believe that is a direct quotation from dang. Not only that, your parent called dang "supreme leader" (i.e. dictator, guilty of atrocities). This is clearly absurd and hyperbolic verbiage. Extremely "colorful" language is modern rhetoric of the worst kind.

dang 7y ago

Where did I do that?

cmroanirgo 7y ago
Ironically, the source of said admonishment wasn't forthcoming, by GP... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19984428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19984428 > Ok, but "got any sources for that?" is a rather unsubstantive contribution, and then going on tilt about getting downvoted breaks the site guidelines outright. Would you mind raising the signal/noise ratio of what you post here? It seems the attempt to correct a low "signal / noise ratio", in this instance, seems to be back firing.
- celticmusic 7y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean, the link you posted showed itself to be 100% accurate with the claim.
  - dang 7y ago
    The issue in that case was more the added bit about downvotes, which broke the site guidelines.
    - celticmusic 7y ago
      The claim of the other poster was accurate. The question of whether you were being fair or not doesn't change that.
      - dang 7y ago
        It wasn't accurate. They mentioned the lesser part of why I moderated the comment and omitted the greater part, which is what most people do when telling a story about how we suppressed them unfairly. That's presumably why such stories never come with links, which would allow readers to make up their own minds about what happened.
        craftyguy 7y ago
        > That's presumably why such stories never come with links No, I didn't include a link because I was posting from my phone, and "hacker" "news" doesn't include a sane way to search through thread history for specific comments. I'm glad someone else went through the trouble. But hey, you're free to continue to not assume good faith, right?
        dang 7y ago
        I said most people and presumably as a way of not jumping to that conclusion about you. The pattern in general is very consistent. But I can see how it would be annoying to read that, if your preference really was to provide a link.