5 ms·

I would hardly call this handful of replies (within a thread of 1200 comments) a "flamewar", and I disagree that it's unsubstantiated or off-topic. If the mode

I would hardly call this handful of replies (within a thread of 1200 comments) a "flamewar", and I disagree that it's unsubstantiated or off-topic. If the moderators think I'm breaking the guidelines, I'll happily comply. Until then, could you please stop telling me to read them?

rvz 5y ago
So you will continue to break the guidelines until you get caught? Right. Your comment is still unsubstantiated, has zero evidence and also risked (and has caused) a flamewar in this thread to go off-topic and that is exactly how it can get divisive very quickly and it was already met with mass flagging earlier from other users to prevent other replies from falling for this flame-bait. > Until then, could you please stop telling me to read them? By commenting here, I assume you have read the guidelines but it seems that you already admitted that you haven't read them which why I'm asking you to read them once again. From [0] > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- stale2002 5y ago
  I would say that your comment much more breaks the rules than the other person's comment. Continuously berating someone for this, feels much closer to starting a flamewar than the original comment. > which why I'm asking you to read them once again. Not really sure why you think you should be able to control this other person.... This comes off as bad faith.
  - rvz 5y ago
    I'm assuming you have read the HN guidelines as well before commenting and I am clearly asking the other commenter for evidence to 'substantiate' their very divisive comment [0] which risks (and has already created) a flamewar in this thread. It was quickly flagged earlier by other users for that reason. From the HN guidelines [1], it clearly states that: > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Where exactly is the evidence or citations in this comment? [0] There aren't any. It has no evidence and it is not substantiated. As for the other two: > Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Clearly the commenter has successfully derailed the discussion to create a flamewar in this thread on top of lacking any evidence in their comment and now the whole thread has gone off topic. Even another commenter in this thread suggested it has gone off-topic. Oh dear. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693548 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - stale2002 5y ago
      But do you understand how your statements here actually cause pretty significant disruption, and cause the problems that you claim to care about? When you act like this, and berate people, by linking something over and over again, it comes off as pretty bad faith.
      - rvz 5y ago
        I'm under the assumption that we've all read the HN guidelines before commenting and as the discussion or topic gets more divisive, even as the guidelines suggests: '...comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less...' [0]. That means these comments must be supported with evidence, which is what I have asked for from the start. So I ask once again: Where exactly is the evidence or citations in the aforementioned comment that I have highlighted? [1] Since the start of my replies, it has still not been substantiated and no evidence has been presented to support it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693548
        stale2002 5y ago
        But, to be clear, my argument is that you constantly posting the same links over and over again, just comes off as bad faith berating. Do you understand this? Because it is not clear that you are actually reading my comments or that you understand this. Can you like snap out of this? You aren't helping anyone when you constantly post the same links over and over again. It feels bad faith. Do you understand the problem with how you are acting?
        rvz 5y ago
        My question remains unanswered and ignored from the very start even before you replied and the aforementioned comment [0] still needs to be supported with evidence, which is why I am asking otherwise it remains unsubstantiated. Unless you think there is ANY evidence in it? So far in this thread I have asked for it many times and no-one can give a simple citation to support it. Maybe you can answer the following question? Where exactly is the evidence or citations in the aforementioned comment that I have highlighted? [0] If there is no evidence to a claim or a statement then it can be safely dismissed as baseless and it most certainly qualifies as off-topic divisive flame-bait which breaks the HN guidelines [1]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693548 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rvz 5y ago

So you will continue to break the guidelines until you get caught? Right. Your comment is still unsubstantiated, has zero evidence and also risked (and has caused) a flamewar in this thread to go off-topic and that is exactly how it can get divisive very quickly and it was already met with mass flagging earlier from other users to prevent other replies from falling for this flame-bait. > Until then, could you please stop telling me to read them? By commenting here, I assume you have read the guidelines but it seems that you already admitted that you haven't read them which why I'm asking you to read them once again. From [0] > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

stale2002 5y ago
I would say that your comment much more breaks the rules than the other person's comment. Continuously berating someone for this, feels much closer to starting a flamewar than the original comment. > which why I'm asking you to read them once again. Not really sure why you think you should be able to control this other person.... This comes off as bad faith.
- rvz 5y ago
  I'm assuming you have read the HN guidelines as well before commenting and I am clearly asking the other commenter for evidence to 'substantiate' their very divisive comment [0] which risks (and has already created) a flamewar in this thread. It was quickly flagged earlier by other users for that reason. From the HN guidelines [1], it clearly states that: > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Where exactly is the evidence or citations in this comment? [0] There aren't any. It has no evidence and it is not substantiated. As for the other two: > Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Clearly the commenter has successfully derailed the discussion to create a flamewar in this thread on top of lacking any evidence in their comment and now the whole thread has gone off topic. Even another commenter in this thread suggested it has gone off-topic. Oh dear. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693548 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - stale2002 5y ago
    But do you understand how your statements here actually cause pretty significant disruption, and cause the problems that you claim to care about? When you act like this, and berate people, by linking something over and over again, it comes off as pretty bad faith.
    - rvz 5y ago
      I'm under the assumption that we've all read the HN guidelines before commenting and as the discussion or topic gets more divisive, even as the guidelines suggests: '...comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less...' [0]. That means these comments must be supported with evidence, which is what I have asked for from the start. So I ask once again: Where exactly is the evidence or citations in the aforementioned comment that I have highlighted? [1] Since the start of my replies, it has still not been substantiated and no evidence has been presented to support it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693548
      - stale2002 5y ago
        But, to be clear, my argument is that you constantly posting the same links over and over again, just comes off as bad faith berating. Do you understand this? Because it is not clear that you are actually reading my comments or that you understand this. Can you like snap out of this? You aren't helping anyone when you constantly post the same links over and over again. It feels bad faith. Do you understand the problem with how you are acting?
        rvz 5y ago
        My question remains unanswered and ignored from the very start even before you replied and the aforementioned comment [0] still needs to be supported with evidence, which is why I am asking otherwise it remains unsubstantiated. Unless you think there is ANY evidence in it? So far in this thread I have asked for it many times and no-one can give a simple citation to support it. Maybe you can answer the following question? Where exactly is the evidence or citations in the aforementioned comment that I have highlighted? [0] If there is no evidence to a claim or a statement then it can be safely dismissed as baseless and it most certainly qualifies as off-topic divisive flame-bait which breaks the HN guidelines [1]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693548 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html