5 ms·

> If one person’s presence is derailing the conversation for some reason, don’t automatically decide they must be the bad guy. The absolute worst thing you can

by dimino 7y ago

> If one person’s presence is derailing the conversation for some reason, don’t automatically decide they must be the bad guy. The absolute worst thing you can do is to tell that person to shut up and leave the discussion while allowing other people to keep attacking them in some way. This includes everyone rebutting their comments that they are no longer allowed to defend because they were asked to stop posting. > It is healthier to allow them to vigorously defend their point of view if they wish. If they are the only person representing a particular point of view or experience, do not act like “they are posting too much” if they reply to everyone talking with them about it. Really wish dang would read this. HN takes the exact opposite approach to this and dang prefers to enforce this to avoid confrontation rather than create a space for conversation. Edit: this is a great example. I can't reply to anyone here, because I'm rate limited, so people can say how many ways I'm wrong and I have no real ability to defend my argument. This is what dang wants, and it's incredibly toxic. The downvotes pour in and I'm helpless.

saagarjha 7y ago
> The absolute worst thing you can do is to tell that person to shut up and leave the discussion while allowing other people to keep attacking them in some way. Hacker News doesn't let you respond to dead comments, so this isn't true.
- dimino 7y ago
  Not talking about dead comments, talking about the rate limiting that's selectively applied to certain IPs/accounts.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    What kind of rate limiting are you seeing? In general, I feel like once you've started feeling the need to post more than once every couple of minutes, then you're more than likely diving in to a nonproductive discussion. (And note that this is different than normally posting more often than that: I am specifically talking about "I need to reply to these four people who are nitpicking me, and I need to rebut their comments now", as opposed to "I'm going through a comment thread and commenting on whatever seems interesting; I would be fine with making this reply at a later point in time".)
    - dimino 7y ago
      > The absolute worst thing you can do is to tell that person to shut up and leave the discussion while allowing other people to keep attacking them in some way. Are you forgetting what we're talking about? Keep in mind you replied to my comment claiming I was wrong, and have since been shown to be wrong yourself. Edit: This is what I see when I try to comment at all on HN for the next ~1 hour: https://gyazo.com/d8ae5c6c5675919f4366b1ce928ad016 https://gyazo.com/d8ae5c6c5675919f4366b1ce928ad016 Dang is not a good shepherd of HN and shouldn't be in the role that he's in. Edit: and now this is flagged. How dare I represent an alternative viewpoint of how dang is performing...
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        No, I'm still on topic. I did not realize that Hacker News would rate limit for that long, so I had assumed your comments were just being flagged or killed.
      - dang 7y ago
        Low-information/high-indignation comments like this are exactly what we rate limit accounts for, when they post too many of them. That's why your accounts are rate-limited, as we've explained to you a dozen times or more. Most HN users who read this thread, or the history of your accounts, will be surprised how lenient we've been with you.
    - Bnshsysjab 7y ago
      Replying to four different comments can be productive discussion too, when four interesting threads spawn as a result of your comment, for example.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        Yes, but usually there's no need to reply to them immediately (as I reply to this one a minute after it was posted…)
        humanrebar 7y ago
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    I don't think people get rate limits for having minority viewpoints. They get rate limits for acting rudely and breaking the site guidelines, none of which are viewpoint-specific. (I know, as someone who once had a rate limit and cleaned up his act.)
    - droithomme 7y ago
      Moderators respond to flagged posts. Minority viewpoint posts are the ones that are flagged. Popular viewpoint posts are not flagged.
      - dang 7y ago
        Popular viewpoint posts get flagged, as they should, when they break the site guidelines. We couldn't care less if a view is popular or not. What we care about is that discussion follow the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        mistermann 7y ago
        Does the rate limiting code take downvotes into consideration?
        mistermann 7y ago
        Why in God's name would a simple question be downvoted? Dang, do you perchance monitor any habitual downvoting of users by particular other users? edit: lol, downvoted within 2 minutes. Here, I'll make it easy for you mysterious friend, here's another new one for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21545859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21545859
        dang 7y ago
        Yes, we monitor that. Could you please stop complaining about downvotes in HN comments? As the guidelines say, it never does any good and it makes boring reading. It's a perennial weed of offtopicness. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  You are equating "telling a person to shut up and leave the discussion while allowing other people to keep attacking them in some way" with physically and forcefully removing them from the discussion, when it rather refers to a social expectation/demand of a group vs. an individual. Such a signal is also sent by downvotes without argument, not to mention piling on to a downvoted or flagged comment (people can respond to response to a flagged comment just fine, and can agree with each other about how horrible the flagged person is or what else they probably advocate for, and all that stuff), while that person is rate limited if not shadowbanned. I can't vote on comments anymore, neither positive nor negative. No clue why, it's been that way since a few months and I stopped caring, just like I wouldn't terribly mind "writing for the showdead community exclusively". But I know that I upvoted comments that I found reasonable, and unfairly greyed out. So either I was manually selected for that, without any precedent or any communication, or there's an algorithm that blindly removes voting from people who don't agree with the herd enough. Either way, the people who haven't been on the wrong end of the stick much are always super quick to assume that means there's nothing shitty going on. But that has more to do with what people want to believe, not with actually looking into any of it.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > people can respond to response to a flagged comment just fine, and can agree with each other about how horrible the flagged person is or what else they probably advocate for, and all that stuff Can people actually do that? I have rarely, if ever, seen this on Hacker News, and I feel like anything like this would be a good way to be downvoted or flagged yourself. > I wouldn't terribly mind "writing for the showdead community exclusively". You're not alone: there are a number of people who do this already. > But I know that I upvoted comments that I found reasonable, and unfairly greyed out. So either I was manually selected for that, without any precedent or any communication, or there's an algorithm that blindly removes voting from people who don't agree with the herd enough. I wonder if this was supposed to be a nudge to use the "vouch" feature instead? Even if it was, it wasn't a particularly good one. Maybe the moderators could tell you why you can't vote if you emailed them?
    - 7y ago
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  You can't vouch it, respond, and then unvouch?
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    I guess you could, but I feel like doing that frequently would cause you to lose your vouching privileges.
  - andrewflnr 7y ago
    Does that work? I guess I assumed vouching just flagged a comment for re-review, rather than instantly reviving it.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      It often does an insta-revive, but I never tested whether you could unvouch after replying.
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    In my experience vouching doesn’t do anything? I can’t reply after I vouch.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Vouching doesn't immediately unflag/unkill a comment.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      That depends on the comment, and I’d guess the vouchers and flaggers.
gregoryl 7y ago
But you are still here, fighting against these restrictions to post, which makes me think they are doing something right to create a space so desirable to participate within.
- mistermann 7y ago
  It's presumptuous to assume the restrictions are what makes HN desirable to participate in. It's possible it plays a role, it's possible it doesn't.
Forge36 7y ago
I here's hate when this happens and I can't imagine how you feel. You have very strong opinions, from the results and status of this thread I think this response is coming from how strongly others are put off by your aggressive defenses and how you're voicing your disagreement with an article or response. (I want aware of Dang before your posts) The substances on your posts seen very on point, however the tone makes your responses feel personal. I don't like hearing that I'm wrong, combined with a tone where I feel I'm a lesser, stupid, idiot, for having a mistaken brief immediately pushes me defensive. It doesn't matter if I agreed with you initially, if this tone is felt ok the first sentence: I'll never reach your substanive argument for your point to be made. Your responses feel like an attack on Dang not a criticism of HN, this is encouraging others to defend him, and the site, because the principle feeling is a personal attack. I'm worried that by posting I'll get that same for of response from you.

by dimino 7y ago

saagarjha 7y ago

> The absolute worst thing you can do is to tell that person to shut up and leave the discussion while allowing other people to keep attacking them in some way. Hacker News doesn't let you respond to dead comments, so this isn't true.

dimino 7y ago
Not talking about dead comments, talking about the rate limiting that's selectively applied to certain IPs/accounts.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  What kind of rate limiting are you seeing? In general, I feel like once you've started feeling the need to post more than once every couple of minutes, then you're more than likely diving in to a nonproductive discussion. (And note that this is different than normally posting more often than that: I am specifically talking about "I need to reply to these four people who are nitpicking me, and I need to rebut their comments now", as opposed to "I'm going through a comment thread and commenting on whatever seems interesting; I would be fine with making this reply at a later point in time".)
  - dimino 7y ago
    > The absolute worst thing you can do is to tell that person to shut up and leave the discussion while allowing other people to keep attacking them in some way. Are you forgetting what we're talking about? Keep in mind you replied to my comment claiming I was wrong, and have since been shown to be wrong yourself. Edit: This is what I see when I try to comment at all on HN for the next ~1 hour: https://gyazo.com/d8ae5c6c5675919f4366b1ce928ad016 https://gyazo.com/d8ae5c6c5675919f4366b1ce928ad016 Dang is not a good shepherd of HN and shouldn't be in the role that he's in. Edit: and now this is flagged. How dare I represent an alternative viewpoint of how dang is performing...
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      No, I'm still on topic. I did not realize that Hacker News would rate limit for that long, so I had assumed your comments were just being flagged or killed.
    - dang 7y ago
      Low-information/high-indignation comments like this are exactly what we rate limit accounts for, when they post too many of them. That's why your accounts are rate-limited, as we've explained to you a dozen times or more. Most HN users who read this thread, or the history of your accounts, will be surprised how lenient we've been with you.
  - Bnshsysjab 7y ago
    Replying to four different comments can be productive discussion too, when four interesting threads spawn as a result of your comment, for example.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Yes, but usually there's no need to reply to them immediately (as I reply to this one a minute after it was posted…)
      - humanrebar 7y ago
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  I don't think people get rate limits for having minority viewpoints. They get rate limits for acting rudely and breaking the site guidelines, none of which are viewpoint-specific. (I know, as someone who once had a rate limit and cleaned up his act.)
  - droithomme 7y ago
    Moderators respond to flagged posts. Minority viewpoint posts are the ones that are flagged. Popular viewpoint posts are not flagged.
    - dang 7y ago
      Popular viewpoint posts get flagged, as they should, when they break the site guidelines. We couldn't care less if a view is popular or not. What we care about is that discussion follow the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - mistermann 7y ago
        Does the rate limiting code take downvotes into consideration?
        mistermann 7y ago
        Why in God's name would a simple question be downvoted? Dang, do you perchance monitor any habitual downvoting of users by particular other users? edit: lol, downvoted within 2 minutes. Here, I'll make it easy for you mysterious friend, here's another new one for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21545859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21545859
        dang 7y ago
        Yes, we monitor that. Could you please stop complaining about downvotes in HN comments? As the guidelines say, it never does any good and it makes boring reading. It's a perennial weed of offtopicness. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
PavlovsCat 7y ago
You are equating "telling a person to shut up and leave the discussion while allowing other people to keep attacking them in some way" with physically and forcefully removing them from the discussion, when it rather refers to a social expectation/demand of a group vs. an individual. Such a signal is also sent by downvotes without argument, not to mention piling on to a downvoted or flagged comment (people can respond to response to a flagged comment just fine, and can agree with each other about how horrible the flagged person is or what else they probably advocate for, and all that stuff), while that person is rate limited if not shadowbanned. I can't vote on comments anymore, neither positive nor negative. No clue why, it's been that way since a few months and I stopped caring, just like I wouldn't terribly mind "writing for the showdead community exclusively". But I know that I upvoted comments that I found reasonable, and unfairly greyed out. So either I was manually selected for that, without any precedent or any communication, or there's an algorithm that blindly removes voting from people who don't agree with the herd enough. Either way, the people who haven't been on the wrong end of the stick much are always super quick to assume that means there's nothing shitty going on. But that has more to do with what people want to believe, not with actually looking into any of it.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > people can respond to response to a flagged comment just fine, and can agree with each other about how horrible the flagged person is or what else they probably advocate for, and all that stuff Can people actually do that? I have rarely, if ever, seen this on Hacker News, and I feel like anything like this would be a good way to be downvoted or flagged yourself. > I wouldn't terribly mind "writing for the showdead community exclusively". You're not alone: there are a number of people who do this already. > But I know that I upvoted comments that I found reasonable, and unfairly greyed out. So either I was manually selected for that, without any precedent or any communication, or there's an algorithm that blindly removes voting from people who don't agree with the herd enough. I wonder if this was supposed to be a nudge to use the "vouch" feature instead? Even if it was, it wasn't a particularly good one. Maybe the moderators could tell you why you can't vote if you emailed them?
  - 7y ago
SamReidHughes 7y ago
You can't vouch it, respond, and then unvouch?
- saagarjha 7y ago
  I guess you could, but I feel like doing that frequently would cause you to lose your vouching privileges.
- andrewflnr 7y ago
  Does that work? I guess I assumed vouching just flagged a comment for re-review, rather than instantly reviving it.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    It often does an insta-revive, but I never tested whether you could unvouch after replying.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  In my experience vouching doesn’t do anything? I can’t reply after I vouch.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Vouching doesn't immediately unflag/unkill a comment.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    That depends on the comment, and I’d guess the vouchers and flaggers.

gregoryl 7y ago

But you are still here, fighting against these restrictions to post, which makes me think they are doing something right to create a space so desirable to participate within.

mistermann 7y ago
It's presumptuous to assume the restrictions are what makes HN desirable to participate in. It's possible it plays a role, it's possible it doesn't.

Forge36 7y ago

I here's hate when this happens and I can't imagine how you feel. You have very strong opinions, from the results and status of this thread I think this response is coming from how strongly others are put off by your aggressive defenses and how you're voicing your disagreement with an article or response. (I want aware of Dang before your posts) The substances on your posts seen very on point, however the tone makes your responses feel personal. I don't like hearing that I'm wrong, combined with a tone where I feel I'm a lesser, stupid, idiot, for having a mistaken brief immediately pushes me defensive. It doesn't matter if I agreed with you initially, if this tone is felt ok the first sentence: I'll never reach your substanive argument for your point to be made. Your responses feel like an attack on Dang not a criticism of HN, this is encouraging others to defend him, and the site, because the principle feeling is a personal attack. I'm worried that by posting I'll get that same for of response from you.