4 ms·

I think it's a good call out to keep in mind the guidelines, but technically the original comment also breaks guidelines. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I

I think it's a good call out to keep in mind the guidelines, but technically the original comment also breaks guidelines. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I would suggest trying to avoid the appearance of personal bias when calling out guidelines infractions on a comment without also calling out infractions within the context equally.

dang 7y ago
I don't see how the GP comment broke the site guidelines. "Snake oil" is close to name-calling, but I don't think it's really over the line, and if we started moderating HN comments for that kind of thing, there would be a huge backlash from the community. Is there something else that I missed? These things are matters of degree in any case, and "what are you even talking about" is clear cut.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Person a: I like the blue stuff in oranges Person b: what are you even talking about? Oranges do not have a blue inside. Now what is a swipe about this or breaking a guidline. It did give the impression ( to me at least) as if I was being picked on. But I think in reality you probably misunderstood the tone and intent. Of course this is just my opinion, what you say is the law here and I intend to abide.
  - dang 7y ago
    I believe you, but intent unfortunately doesn't communicate itself well in internet forums, so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20burden%20disambiguate&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... In this case the phrase was one that commonly communicates dismissiveness, which is why I interpreted you the way I did. If you read the guidelines it's clear that (to take your example) such a reply can be shortened to "Oranges do not have a blue inside". However: no harm done! I appreciate your reply and your intention.
- gshulegaard 7y ago
  Specifically I was thinking about this: > Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. The original comment had equally strong phrasing on what amounts to an informed opinion: > I'm so sad to see Mozilla move forward with this massive attack on user privacy. The insinuation that this is an attack on user privacy is a bit of an escalation in description. In truth much of the following information describes a potential threat to user privacy, for it to be an attack one would have to provide evidence of intent. > Firefox DoH is snake oil, plain and simple. I would argue this statement could be construed as snarky (at least that is how I interpreted it). Generally speaking, I don't consider myself an expert, but I do think I have a more informed opinion than most (and no doubt many HN readers have even better informed opinions than my own). And while I do see the merits behind the points raised in the original comment, I do think it could have been presented better.
nullc 7y ago
It wasn't my intention to make an inflammatory comment. My statement was strongly worded, but it is my informed opinion as a subject matter expert: As someone who worked in ISP networking for over a decade, worked at Mozilla, and work on network protocol, I feel that I'm entitled to have a strongly stated opinion and I believe I substantiated it in my post. I'm also happy to have a polite discussion justifying it further.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gshulegaard 7y ago
  I'm glad your intention was not malignant! I didn't mean to imply it was, truthfully I was just trying to also contribute to keeping discourse civil. See my comment above about specific things that (I personally think) could have been phrased a bit better; I am not saying you're comment was unhelpful or deserves reprimand. Just wanted to point out to the comment(er) that both comments had aspects that could have been phrased a bit better and chastising one is not as helpful to improving discourse as providing complete feedback in the interest of being fair. Disclaimer: I deleted a previous comment because on re-reading I think I meandered a bit and thought I could do better.

dang 7y ago

I don't see how the GP comment broke the site guidelines. "Snake oil" is close to name-calling, but I don't think it's really over the line, and if we started moderating HN comments for that kind of thing, there would be a huge backlash from the community. Is there something else that I missed? These things are matters of degree in any case, and "what are you even talking about" is clear cut.

badrabbit 7y ago
Person a: I like the blue stuff in oranges Person b: what are you even talking about? Oranges do not have a blue inside. Now what is a swipe about this or breaking a guidline. It did give the impression ( to me at least) as if I was being picked on. But I think in reality you probably misunderstood the tone and intent. Of course this is just my opinion, what you say is the law here and I intend to abide.
- dang 7y ago
  I believe you, but intent unfortunately doesn't communicate itself well in internet forums, so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20burden%20disambiguate&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... In this case the phrase was one that commonly communicates dismissiveness, which is why I interpreted you the way I did. If you read the guidelines it's clear that (to take your example) such a reply can be shortened to "Oranges do not have a blue inside". However: no harm done! I appreciate your reply and your intention.
gshulegaard 7y ago
Specifically I was thinking about this: > Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. The original comment had equally strong phrasing on what amounts to an informed opinion: > I'm so sad to see Mozilla move forward with this massive attack on user privacy. The insinuation that this is an attack on user privacy is a bit of an escalation in description. In truth much of the following information describes a potential threat to user privacy, for it to be an attack one would have to provide evidence of intent. > Firefox DoH is snake oil, plain and simple. I would argue this statement could be construed as snarky (at least that is how I interpreted it). Generally speaking, I don't consider myself an expert, but I do think I have a more informed opinion than most (and no doubt many HN readers have even better informed opinions than my own). And while I do see the merits behind the points raised in the original comment, I do think it could have been presented better.

nullc 7y ago

It wasn't my intention to make an inflammatory comment. My statement was strongly worded, but it is my informed opinion as a subject matter expert: As someone who worked in ISP networking for over a decade, worked at Mozilla, and work on network protocol, I feel that I'm entitled to have a strongly stated opinion and I believe I substantiated it in my post. I'm also happy to have a polite discussion justifying it further.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gshulegaard 7y ago
I'm glad your intention was not malignant! I didn't mean to imply it was, truthfully I was just trying to also contribute to keeping discourse civil. See my comment above about specific things that (I personally think) could have been phrased a bit better; I am not saying you're comment was unhelpful or deserves reprimand. Just wanted to point out to the comment(er) that both comments had aspects that could have been phrased a bit better and chastising one is not as helpful to improving discourse as providing complete feedback in the interest of being fair. Disclaimer: I deleted a previous comment because on re-reading I think I meandered a bit and thought I could do better.