4 ms·

A person who uses Discord posting on the Discord forum about how the changes (in their opinion) make the product worse to use is not exactly a good comparison t

A person who uses Discord posting on the Discord forum about how the changes (in their opinion) make the product worse to use is not exactly a good comparison to a "bad tumblr post", unless what makes it a bad tumblr post is that it's a downer or you feel it doesn't meet your quality bar for Good Forum Content. By my reckoning, the post clearly enumerates their complaints with the new design, it provides some references that they believe support their argument, and suggests a remedy (revert the design). There is no cursing in it and it does not contain any personal attacks. It doesn't contain any conspiracy theories or memes or sarcasm or other markers you might associate with "bad posts". It's kind of baffling that you are willing to decide that the poster is some sort of tumblr reject based on not liking how they argue their points when you haven't even used the product.

listless 6y ago
I think it’s the “harmful” rhetoric that signals “I have an agenda”. We really need to get passed this charged way of conveying perfectly valid feedback. Because come on. It’s a chat app.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  Of course they have an agenda. Discord is harder for them to use now, and they want it fixed. When did "agenda" become a negatively charged concept that only bad actors possess? Slack and Teams are chat apps too. Why would chat apps not be important?
  - kodah 6y ago
    Using emotionally charged language is usually pretty off-putting. Some people are used to using emotionally charged language any time they feel some way, but I think that ends up wearing people down for when they hear it in the future. That's probably why you have so many people here commenting about the use of "harm".
  - listless 6y ago
    By “agenda” I meant it in the sense that this isn’t about accessibility as much as it is this person getting points for a call out. That’s a bad faith interpretation. So not presenting that as irrefutable fact.
mpalmer 6y ago
The language people use to express themselves is important; forming reasonable arguments is an important skill. Falling back on strong emotional language like actively harms is a crutch - unless well-supported by facts or reasoning. Also they don't "suggest" a remedy, they demand it, and their demand is backed by their unsupported claim of "actively harms".
- cwilkes 6y ago
  > Also they don't "suggest" a remedy, they demand it Would this post have been better if they said “it might be a good idea if you considered going back to the previous way?” I’m not sure how soft pedaling the ask makes it more reasonable. The post is pretty clear in what is wrong and how to fix it. If anything Discord is the aggressor here with a forced change without an “use the old UI” button. If the posts included screenshots to show how bad the UI change is that would have made it better. Maybe the support forum doesn’t allow it.
  - Closi 6y ago
    I think they just mean turn down the language. > White mentions lack visual clarity and are incredibly harmful to individuals with visual impairment "Incredibly Harmful" is hyperbole, and for instance could be rewritten as: > White mentions lack visual clarity and are hard for individuals with visual impairment to read. Otherwise what does harmful mean? Here are some examples of things that I perceive as incredibly harmful: * Huffing glue * Stabbing yourself * Lead poisoning Not being able to read a mention without highlighting it, or selecting a different theme, probably doesn't quite class on the same level as these things, even if it should be fixed. Similarly, Catastrophic means "involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering" - which isn't meant literally, it's hyperbole, but the problem with hyperbole is that writing containing can come across overly exaggerated and emotional.
  - mpalmer 6y ago
    I guess one person's soft pedaling is another's common decency. But that doesn't get nearly as many clicks or views, or HN comments for that matter. And seriously? "Aggressor"? It's not an attack, for god's sake.

listless 6y ago

I think it’s the “harmful” rhetoric that signals “I have an agenda”. We really need to get passed this charged way of conveying perfectly valid feedback. Because come on. It’s a chat app.

kevingadd 6y ago
Of course they have an agenda. Discord is harder for them to use now, and they want it fixed. When did "agenda" become a negatively charged concept that only bad actors possess? Slack and Teams are chat apps too. Why would chat apps not be important?
- kodah 6y ago
  Using emotionally charged language is usually pretty off-putting. Some people are used to using emotionally charged language any time they feel some way, but I think that ends up wearing people down for when they hear it in the future. That's probably why you have so many people here commenting about the use of "harm".
- listless 6y ago
  By “agenda” I meant it in the sense that this isn’t about accessibility as much as it is this person getting points for a call out. That’s a bad faith interpretation. So not presenting that as irrefutable fact.

mpalmer 6y ago

The language people use to express themselves is important; forming reasonable arguments is an important skill. Falling back on strong emotional language like actively harms is a crutch - unless well-supported by facts or reasoning. Also they don't "suggest" a remedy, they demand it, and their demand is backed by their unsupported claim of "actively harms".

cwilkes 6y ago
> Also they don't "suggest" a remedy, they demand it Would this post have been better if they said “it might be a good idea if you considered going back to the previous way?” I’m not sure how soft pedaling the ask makes it more reasonable. The post is pretty clear in what is wrong and how to fix it. If anything Discord is the aggressor here with a forced change without an “use the old UI” button. If the posts included screenshots to show how bad the UI change is that would have made it better. Maybe the support forum doesn’t allow it.
- Closi 6y ago
  I think they just mean turn down the language. > White mentions lack visual clarity and are incredibly harmful to individuals with visual impairment "Incredibly Harmful" is hyperbole, and for instance could be rewritten as: > White mentions lack visual clarity and are hard for individuals with visual impairment to read. Otherwise what does harmful mean? Here are some examples of things that I perceive as incredibly harmful: * Huffing glue * Stabbing yourself * Lead poisoning Not being able to read a mention without highlighting it, or selecting a different theme, probably doesn't quite class on the same level as these things, even if it should be fixed. Similarly, Catastrophic means "involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering" - which isn't meant literally, it's hyperbole, but the problem with hyperbole is that writing containing can come across overly exaggerated and emotional.
- mpalmer 6y ago
  I guess one person's soft pedaling is another's common decency. But that doesn't get nearly as many clicks or views, or HN comments for that matter. And seriously? "Aggressor"? It's not an attack, for god's sake.