3 ms·
Is there such a guideline ? If there is, I've never noticed it. I've certainly seen people address HN on HN quite a few times, I might even have done it myself,
by Bayart 5y ago
Is there such a guideline ? If there is, I've never noticed it. I've certainly seen people address HN on HN quite a few times, I might even have done it myself, but I was always under the impression that it was fine insofar as you're acting sensible.
Anyhow, if people get so invested into HN that they feel the need to vent about it, the problem might not be HN.
- krapp 5y agoNo specific guideline, it's more the effect of various guidelines being interpreted by a defensive culture. We can't accuse someone of not having read the article, despite two of the biggest problems this community has regarding the quality of conversation being people only commenting on the title, and people using the title as a springboard for whatever polemic it triggers in them. We can't be "snarky" or "sneer" about the community. Any direct criticism of the community comes off as snark. Meta commentary is frowned upon for being unsubstantive. All criticism of the community is meta commentary by definition. >Anyhow, if people get so invested into HN that they feel the need to vent about it, the problem might not be HN. And then again, the problem might be HN. Getting invested in a community and being disappointed in its faults isn't a problem.