4 ms·

Sorry. I said it partially tongue-in-cheek. What would be an appropriate response to someone who's posted several comments to the same top-level post, all of w

by tomp 5y ago

Sorry. I said it partially tongue-in-cheek. What would be an appropriate response to someone who's posted several comments to the same top-level post, all of which are grossly misleading and/or complete strawmen? Obviously I don't have evidence of "abuse" (is this even abuse? obviously people can be trolls without being big-co/gov funded) but I'd like to point out the above fact to other commenters who might not have noticed it otherwise.

dang 5y ago
In terms of posting to HN itself, an appropriate response would be to refute bad arguments with better arguments and/or incorrect information with correct information—or alternatively, to remember that to a first approximation, everyone is wrong on the internet, and just let it go. You don't need to do more than that for other commenters; they can take care of themselves. If an account is behaving badly, such as by repeatedly breaking the site guidelines, sending a heads-up to hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it is also an appropriate response.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > an appropriate response would be to refute bad arguments with better arguments and/or incorrect information with correct information Isn't that just demanding that everyone surrender to a shill's Gish gallop?
  - dang 5y ago
    I'd need to see specific links. It's difficult to answer that generically, because who people call a 'shill' varies so much, and it's unquestionably the case that people frequently apply such terms to other commenters who in fact are posting in good faith. On the internet, someone having a sufficiently different background from you, and someone posting in bad faith, are basically indistinguishable. I can't resist saying a couple general things though. First, I think you need to assume a smart audience. If someone's throwing an endless sequence of distracting objections at you (which is how I understand 'gish gallop'), that doesn't have a lot of persuasive power for a smart audience. You should trust readers to see that those are distractions, and limit yourself (at most) to pointing out that they're not relevant. Second, if you're truly dealing with someone posting in bad faith, the time-honored internet adage explains what do to: don't feed the trolls. I would never underestimate the wisdom of that advice. It may be the wisest thing the internet has ever said.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > I'd need to see specific links. It's difficult to answer that generically Sorry, no links; I was asking generically. (Though a couple pro-PRC guys on this page feel pretty close.) > the time-honored internet adage explains what do to: don't feed the trolls. I would never underestimate the wisdom of that advice. It may be the wisest thing the internet has ever said. Yup. (Well, immediately after anything posted by me, of course.) Sometimes hard to remember, though: Provocateurs provoke. Anyway, forget all that for a while, and have a merry Christmas!

by tomp 5y ago

dang 5y ago

In terms of posting to HN itself, an appropriate response would be to refute bad arguments with better arguments and/or incorrect information with correct information—or alternatively, to remember that to a first approximation, everyone is wrong on the internet, and just let it go. You don't need to do more than that for other commenters; they can take care of themselves. If an account is behaving badly, such as by repeatedly breaking the site guidelines, sending a heads-up to hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it is also an appropriate response.

CRConrad 5y ago
> an appropriate response would be to refute bad arguments with better arguments and/or incorrect information with correct information Isn't that just demanding that everyone surrender to a shill's Gish gallop?
- dang 5y ago
  I'd need to see specific links. It's difficult to answer that generically, because who people call a 'shill' varies so much, and it's unquestionably the case that people frequently apply such terms to other commenters who in fact are posting in good faith. On the internet, someone having a sufficiently different background from you, and someone posting in bad faith, are basically indistinguishable. I can't resist saying a couple general things though. First, I think you need to assume a smart audience. If someone's throwing an endless sequence of distracting objections at you (which is how I understand 'gish gallop'), that doesn't have a lot of persuasive power for a smart audience. You should trust readers to see that those are distractions, and limit yourself (at most) to pointing out that they're not relevant. Second, if you're truly dealing with someone posting in bad faith, the time-honored internet adage explains what do to: don't feed the trolls. I would never underestimate the wisdom of that advice. It may be the wisest thing the internet has ever said.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > I'd need to see specific links. It's difficult to answer that generically Sorry, no links; I was asking generically. (Though a couple pro-PRC guys on this page feel pretty close.) > the time-honored internet adage explains what do to: don't feed the trolls. I would never underestimate the wisdom of that advice. It may be the wisest thing the internet has ever said. Yup. (Well, immediately after anything posted by me, of course.) Sometimes hard to remember, though: Provocateurs provoke. Anyway, forget all that for a while, and have a merry Christmas!