4 ms·

>please don't complain about downvotes. shouldn't people just not downvote if this is against the rules? since you're so hands on can't you reach out directly

>please don't complain about downvotes. shouldn't people just not downvote if this is against the rules? since you're so hands on can't you reach out directly to that person and admonish them not to downvote for this? criticizing me for being upset is like criticizing someone that points out ... being persecuted. but it's decorum above all again. i swear this place is a country club. and what exactly is wrong with leaving a testament to how goofy people's sensibilities are (such as it is that there was in fact someone that came along and had their feathers ruffled by an archive.md link).

dang 6y ago
It's not about "decorum". Complaints about downvotes make for shitty reading.
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  then don't read them? at least that's what i'm constantly chided with when i bring up that there 50 billion other hn tropes that are just as grating to read. i had a list on one of my alts. it went something like 1. mobile site is broken 2. didn't read past because 3. etc. so how do you pick which tropes get a pass and which don't? but shouldn't it be all or none? the fact it isn't uniformly all or none proves it is in fact about decorum.
  - dang 6y ago
    "Then don't read them" is like saying "then don't eat it" if someone objects to garbage with dinner. It's also not practical advice, because it takes energy to distinguish signal from noise, and the more noise there is, the worse the site becomes, making it less worth it to spend that energy. Believe me, I'd love to be able to reduce every category of low-quality comment on HN. That's not possible, or even close, so we have to pick our battles. The guidelines single out certain classes of comments, like ones about voting and insinuations about astroturfing because those are particularly common and particularly prone to make discussion degenerate. Ditto for ideological battle, shallow dismissals, and so on. We downweight off-topic complaints about website design being broken, etc., especially when they're sitting at the top of a thread. Ditto for shallow dismissals like "didn't read past". But it would take time and energy that we don't have to post the same sort of moderation replies to all of those. Also, I don't think the community would support it—the threads would likely fill up with many more backlash comments. I don't recognize most usernames—again, there are far too many for that to be possible. If you're "constantly chided" the reason is that you're constantly breaking the rules. Why not just follow them and use HN as intended? It's not so hard, and since you care about site quality it seems weird to be flouting rules that are specifically intended to protect that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - throwlaplace 6y ago
      > constantly chided with when i bring up that there's a conditional there. what i'm expressing is that when i bring up the fact that i'm sick of people commenting about mobile websites or posting shallow dismissals then people often respond with "don't read them". so therefore i take your response to mean that i'm at liberty to respond to those people (those that take the refrain that i just shouldn't read) with something something "garbage mixed with dinner". > Why not just follow them and use HN as intended? It's not so hard. personally i think your rules are dumb and completely unenforceable except at great personal cost to you (making you even sillier for playing the role of hall monitor). but that's just me - i guess we all choose or own stone to roll up the hill.

dang 6y ago

It's not about "decorum". Complaints about downvotes make for shitty reading.

throwlaplace 6y ago
then don't read them? at least that's what i'm constantly chided with when i bring up that there 50 billion other hn tropes that are just as grating to read. i had a list on one of my alts. it went something like 1. mobile site is broken 2. didn't read past because 3. etc. so how do you pick which tropes get a pass and which don't? but shouldn't it be all or none? the fact it isn't uniformly all or none proves it is in fact about decorum.
- dang 6y ago
  "Then don't read them" is like saying "then don't eat it" if someone objects to garbage with dinner. It's also not practical advice, because it takes energy to distinguish signal from noise, and the more noise there is, the worse the site becomes, making it less worth it to spend that energy. Believe me, I'd love to be able to reduce every category of low-quality comment on HN. That's not possible, or even close, so we have to pick our battles. The guidelines single out certain classes of comments, like ones about voting and insinuations about astroturfing because those are particularly common and particularly prone to make discussion degenerate. Ditto for ideological battle, shallow dismissals, and so on. We downweight off-topic complaints about website design being broken, etc., especially when they're sitting at the top of a thread. Ditto for shallow dismissals like "didn't read past". But it would take time and energy that we don't have to post the same sort of moderation replies to all of those. Also, I don't think the community would support it—the threads would likely fill up with many more backlash comments. I don't recognize most usernames—again, there are far too many for that to be possible. If you're "constantly chided" the reason is that you're constantly breaking the rules. Why not just follow them and use HN as intended? It's not so hard, and since you care about site quality it seems weird to be flouting rules that are specifically intended to protect that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - throwlaplace 6y ago
    > constantly chided with when i bring up that there's a conditional there. what i'm expressing is that when i bring up the fact that i'm sick of people commenting about mobile websites or posting shallow dismissals then people often respond with "don't read them". so therefore i take your response to mean that i'm at liberty to respond to those people (those that take the refrain that i just shouldn't read) with something something "garbage mixed with dinner". > Why not just follow them and use HN as intended? It's not so hard. personally i think your rules are dumb and completely unenforceable except at great personal cost to you (making you even sillier for playing the role of hall monitor). but that's just me - i guess we all choose or own stone to roll up the hill.