4 ms·

Then how about you practice your own damn rules? This one in particular Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a

by ukj 5y ago

Then how about you practice your own damn rules? This one in particular Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. In the strongest possible interpretation (had you assumed good faith) my comment is NOT inflamatory. I am pointing out that pandemics are a PvE (Player vs Environment) game, not PvP (Player vs Player) game. And I am stating the ovious: the E in PvE doesn't care about your rights.

dang 5y ago
Interpretations can differ, obviously, but I wouldn't say that was a borderline call. Your comment was snarky and aggressive on a divisive topic. That's a flamewar comment. There's an interesting phenomenon where, in responding to moderation comments, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would have been much better to say in the first place. It seems to me you did that here: > pandemics are a PvE (Player vs Environment) game, not PvP (Player vs Player) game. That's an interesting observation which could have formed the nucleus of a thoughtful comment. However, you didn't post anything like that in the GP. The trouble is that you (I don't mean you personally, but all of us) have your meaning in your head, but the rest of us don't have access to that, so if it's to come across, you need to explain it explicitly. Making a snarky comment that somehow presupposes your meaning doesn't do this. That is, it does it for the person speaking (who has access to the implicit meaning) but for everyone else, only the snark comes across, not the argument. For best results, you should include the argument and drop the snark. That's what the site guidelines are trying to get at. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ukj 5y ago
  >There's an interesting phenomenon where, in responding to moderation comments, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would have been much better to say in the first place. I am surprised tha this surprises you. It is generally true that in responding to any evolving dialogue, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would've been much better to say in the first place. Because that's how dialogue works, and that's what dialogue is for. Elucidating meaning. What is baffling me in this interaction is that you seem perfectly aware of the fact that my meaning is in my head, but then you also expected to find it in my words without any dialogue.
  - dang 5y ago
    Perhaps this will be clearer: (1) don't post snarky, low-information comments to HN; (2) do say something thoughtful and substantive. Having something substantive in your head does not justify posting a snarky low-information comment. You need to make the substantive comment explicitly, and without the snark.
    - ukj 5y ago
      Perhaps this will be clearer: (1) Don't interpret my post as snarky (2) don't judge my comment as thoughtless and non-substantive when a thoughtful and substantive interpretation to my laconic comment exists (as you have become aware). I heard you have a rule about that. Maybe you could lead by example. >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

by ukj 5y ago

dang 5y ago

Interpretations can differ, obviously, but I wouldn't say that was a borderline call. Your comment was snarky and aggressive on a divisive topic. That's a flamewar comment. There's an interesting phenomenon where, in responding to moderation comments, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would have been much better to say in the first place. It seems to me you did that here: > pandemics are a PvE (Player vs Environment) game, not PvP (Player vs Player) game. That's an interesting observation which could have formed the nucleus of a thoughtful comment. However, you didn't post anything like that in the GP. The trouble is that you (I don't mean you personally, but all of us) have your meaning in your head, but the rest of us don't have access to that, so if it's to come across, you need to explain it explicitly. Making a snarky comment that somehow presupposes your meaning doesn't do this. That is, it does it for the person speaking (who has access to the implicit meaning) but for everyone else, only the snark comes across, not the argument. For best results, you should include the argument and drop the snark. That's what the site guidelines are trying to get at. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ukj 5y ago
>There's an interesting phenomenon where, in responding to moderation comments, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would have been much better to say in the first place. I am surprised tha this surprises you. It is generally true that in responding to any evolving dialogue, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would've been much better to say in the first place. Because that's how dialogue works, and that's what dialogue is for. Elucidating meaning. What is baffling me in this interaction is that you seem perfectly aware of the fact that my meaning is in my head, but then you also expected to find it in my words without any dialogue.
- dang 5y ago
  Perhaps this will be clearer: (1) don't post snarky, low-information comments to HN; (2) do say something thoughtful and substantive. Having something substantive in your head does not justify posting a snarky low-information comment. You need to make the substantive comment explicitly, and without the snark.
  - ukj 5y ago
    Perhaps this will be clearer: (1) Don't interpret my post as snarky (2) don't judge my comment as thoughtless and non-substantive when a thoughtful and substantive interpretation to my laconic comment exists (as you have become aware). I heard you have a rule about that. Maybe you could lead by example. >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.