3 ms·

... it’s dang.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
I know who it is. I just think it’s funny that that particular guideline is so poorly written that even Dang violates it occasionally.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I just think it’s funny that that particular guideline is so poorly written that even Dang violates it occasionally. The “guidelines” are, as the name suggests, “more what you'd call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.”
- tptacek 6y ago
  Ok, write it better.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    I think the guideline makes 3 assumptions, and I only consider two of them to be reasonable. The reasonable ones I would say are: 1. Complaining about downvotes is never interesting 2. Discussing HN as if it represented a single unified perspective is never interesting The unreasonable assumption I believe is implied by the guideline is: 3. Meta-discussion is never interesting Dang's comment in the example is essentially a meta-observation which I would say has perfectly fine merit, but goes against the guideline as it's written. While HN (or any other internet community) will never had a single unified perspective, it does seem to have certain prevailing sentiments and opinions about certain topics. We all can (and I'm sure we all do) observe trends in what comments are made on particular topics, and what types of comments are downvoted and upvoted, and I think discussing those observations is perfectly reasonable (as illustrated by the head moderator engaging in such a discussion). If I were to improve it, I would write: > Please do not complain about downvotes. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. If you wish to post meta-commentary keep in mind that the community represents a large variety of view points. The problems you run into with interpreting that is that whether something is "complaining" or not, and whether a piece of meta-commentary is too narrowly framed is clearly open to interpretation. But the system of voting we have is already sufficient to handle that situation. Perhaps it's not very important at all, but it would avoid some instance of a different type of comment, which is also never interesting. The "your comment doesn't follow the guidelines" comment.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      See, it's not that easy, is it? Try to say clearly what meta-commentary is OK, and do it without using words that only mean something to the arch-message-board nerds, like "meta-commentary", and do it in a single sentence. I've tried too and run aground almost every time. I don't think what we have now is optimal, or that "If you wish to post meta-commentary keep in mind that the community represents a large variety of view points." helps much. It's an interesting project! I'm not being sarcastic. I've found Dan has been pretty receptive to guideline suggestions and broadly wants the same thing everyone else does: clear, concise guidelines that, well, guide the conversation on HN to the place we're trying to keep it.
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        I’m sure you’re not being sarcastic at all. I’ve spent a lot of time dealing with interpreting/writing/improving security policies, which largely revolves around the same sort of issues were discussing here. I would guess that you also have a fair bit of experience with that sort of thing. My main point was that I think a guideline that nobody follows is arguably less valuable than not having a guideline in the first place. I think I did a reasonable job of articulating what I think is wrong with it, but I guess whether I have any useful suggestions for improving it is a different matter. I find the process of writing a policy usually involves suggesting a lot of bad ideas before you come up with a set of good ones.
        tptacek 6y ago
        I think "don't talk about downvoting" is one of our better policies, because it works: complaints about getting downvoted are reliably punished and often flagged off the site. A thing the HN guidelines have to deal with that security policies definitely don't is minimalism. There's 1,000 additional guidelines I'd add if we could just have every guideline I want! "Don't dunk on programming languages in stories about unrelated programming languages"! "Don't write 2 line comments about how Google cancels every service it announces every time Google announces a new product"! "Don't correct other people's English usage"! If the HN guidelines were a security policy this would be a piece of cake. A thing I think you'll probably notice is that a lot of serious, enforced rules on HN aren't even in the guidelines, because there isn't a minimal way to express them that won't cause more drama than it eliminates. We've got a sort of English common law thing going on here, where there's a jurisprudence you can only pick up by following the mods. I think it's actually working out pretty OK that way.

... it’s dang.

I know who it is. I just think it’s funny that that particular guideline is so poorly written that even Dang violates it occasionally.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I just think it’s funny that that particular guideline is so poorly written that even Dang violates it occasionally. The “guidelines” are, as the name suggests, “more what you'd call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.”
tptacek 6y ago
Ok, write it better.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  I think the guideline makes 3 assumptions, and I only consider two of them to be reasonable. The reasonable ones I would say are: 1. Complaining about downvotes is never interesting 2. Discussing HN as if it represented a single unified perspective is never interesting The unreasonable assumption I believe is implied by the guideline is: 3. Meta-discussion is never interesting Dang's comment in the example is essentially a meta-observation which I would say has perfectly fine merit, but goes against the guideline as it's written. While HN (or any other internet community) will never had a single unified perspective, it does seem to have certain prevailing sentiments and opinions about certain topics. We all can (and I'm sure we all do) observe trends in what comments are made on particular topics, and what types of comments are downvoted and upvoted, and I think discussing those observations is perfectly reasonable (as illustrated by the head moderator engaging in such a discussion). If I were to improve it, I would write: > Please do not complain about downvotes. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. If you wish to post meta-commentary keep in mind that the community represents a large variety of view points. The problems you run into with interpreting that is that whether something is "complaining" or not, and whether a piece of meta-commentary is too narrowly framed is clearly open to interpretation. But the system of voting we have is already sufficient to handle that situation. Perhaps it's not very important at all, but it would avoid some instance of a different type of comment, which is also never interesting. The "your comment doesn't follow the guidelines" comment.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    See, it's not that easy, is it? Try to say clearly what meta-commentary is OK, and do it without using words that only mean something to the arch-message-board nerds, like "meta-commentary", and do it in a single sentence. I've tried too and run aground almost every time. I don't think what we have now is optimal, or that "If you wish to post meta-commentary keep in mind that the community represents a large variety of view points." helps much. It's an interesting project! I'm not being sarcastic. I've found Dan has been pretty receptive to guideline suggestions and broadly wants the same thing everyone else does: clear, concise guidelines that, well, guide the conversation on HN to the place we're trying to keep it.
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      I’m sure you’re not being sarcastic at all. I’ve spent a lot of time dealing with interpreting/writing/improving security policies, which largely revolves around the same sort of issues were discussing here. I would guess that you also have a fair bit of experience with that sort of thing. My main point was that I think a guideline that nobody follows is arguably less valuable than not having a guideline in the first place. I think I did a reasonable job of articulating what I think is wrong with it, but I guess whether I have any useful suggestions for improving it is a different matter. I find the process of writing a policy usually involves suggesting a lot of bad ideas before you come up with a set of good ones.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        I think "don't talk about downvoting" is one of our better policies, because it works: complaints about getting downvoted are reliably punished and often flagged off the site. A thing the HN guidelines have to deal with that security policies definitely don't is minimalism. There's 1,000 additional guidelines I'd add if we could just have every guideline I want! "Don't dunk on programming languages in stories about unrelated programming languages"! "Don't write 2 line comments about how Google cancels every service it announces every time Google announces a new product"! "Don't correct other people's English usage"! If the HN guidelines were a security policy this would be a piece of cake. A thing I think you'll probably notice is that a lot of serious, enforced rules on HN aren't even in the guidelines, because there isn't a minimal way to express them that won't cause more drama than it eliminates. We've got a sort of English common law thing going on here, where there's a jurisprudence you can only pick up by following the mods. I think it's actually working out pretty OK that way.