3 ms·

> What are the chances this very specific comment was made in good faith? That's irrelevant, per the guidelines. > Please respond to the strongest plausible i

> What are the chances this very specific comment was made in good faith? That's irrelevant, per the guidelines. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

beebeepka 5y ago
What is your point? 1. I responded to the strongest possible interpretation based on what was said. 2. How is that irrelevant? If, for whatever reason, your goal is to conceal conflict or negatives in general, I suggest you pick on someone else.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  The guidelines mandate you to assume good faith (you must observe them to participate here). This means (not exclusively) that you have to first answer yourself to that doubt you expressed vis-a-vis the post that originated it, and attempt finding an acceptable interpretation of the original post. Your reply shall reflect that. (If your «strongest possible interpretation» clashes with the assumption of good faith, you will have to think again, and longer. Surely, your reply will reflect that.) Contextually, for example: the poster did not recommend a non-identity concealing product over an identity concealing product /in general/ - the poster noted that the way the identity concealing product is developed/distributed, it is easier for exploitable bugs to be fixed comparatively later - the user must be aware of this. Also: > conceal conflict No. "Manage conflict productively", to achieve some result. «For whatever reason»: efficiency, efficacy, productivity, civilization, enthalpy (fighting entropy), "keeping the place in good order".
  - stavros 5y ago
    He's doubting the intentions of the author, he's not attacking a straw man. I don't see a problem there.
    - quickthrower2 5y ago
      The problem is if we get a comment every time someone thinks someone else has a hidden agenda, thats a lot of noise on the forum (or indeed any forum in general). People really slog it out like that on Reddit and it is quite annoying when they do.
      - beebeepka 5y ago
        I see what's going on here. You've had bad experience on a forum I've never been and projecting your frustrations onto me. Why can't you assume good faith on my part?
        quickthrower2 5y ago
        You are off in guessing my state of mind. My point is making assumptions about intent leads to boring discussion. See the moderators (dang) post history and what he has to reply to, for examples. There is a guideline on HN about replying to the best possible interpretation. Doing so diffuses trolls and encourages people who didn’t explain well the first time to expand on their thinking. It is also super pleasant to read posts of this style.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      Like quickthrower2 wrote, plus, the matter of duly post quality. There are two drawbacks: dilution of qualitative posts like signal in noise, and that each post should have inherent value (not cheap). Safeguarding personal expression (of the person as it is), every member should do their homework. This also involves finding the «strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says». You seem to entail from the formulation of that guideline («...easier to criticize») that only strawman arguments are discriminated: too literal. For that matter, one could have mentioned «curious conversation», «shallow dismissals», «insinuations». You should take the guidelines as a whole - the intention - instead of just their formulated parts (which are not a lean complete formal logical corpus from which all consequences can be entailed through sheer syntactical deduction). Literally, a mandate is there against what «degrades discussion».

beebeepka 5y ago

What is your point? 1. I responded to the strongest possible interpretation based on what was said. 2. How is that irrelevant? If, for whatever reason, your goal is to conceal conflict or negatives in general, I suggest you pick on someone else.

mdp2021 5y ago
The guidelines mandate you to assume good faith (you must observe them to participate here). This means (not exclusively) that you have to first answer yourself to that doubt you expressed vis-a-vis the post that originated it, and attempt finding an acceptable interpretation of the original post. Your reply shall reflect that. (If your «strongest possible interpretation» clashes with the assumption of good faith, you will have to think again, and longer. Surely, your reply will reflect that.) Contextually, for example: the poster did not recommend a non-identity concealing product over an identity concealing product /in general/ - the poster noted that the way the identity concealing product is developed/distributed, it is easier for exploitable bugs to be fixed comparatively later - the user must be aware of this. Also: > conceal conflict No. "Manage conflict productively", to achieve some result. «For whatever reason»: efficiency, efficacy, productivity, civilization, enthalpy (fighting entropy), "keeping the place in good order".
- stavros 5y ago
  He's doubting the intentions of the author, he's not attacking a straw man. I don't see a problem there.
  - quickthrower2 5y ago
    The problem is if we get a comment every time someone thinks someone else has a hidden agenda, thats a lot of noise on the forum (or indeed any forum in general). People really slog it out like that on Reddit and it is quite annoying when they do.
    - beebeepka 5y ago
      I see what's going on here. You've had bad experience on a forum I've never been and projecting your frustrations onto me. Why can't you assume good faith on my part?
      - quickthrower2 5y ago
        You are off in guessing my state of mind. My point is making assumptions about intent leads to boring discussion. See the moderators (dang) post history and what he has to reply to, for examples. There is a guideline on HN about replying to the best possible interpretation. Doing so diffuses trolls and encourages people who didn’t explain well the first time to expand on their thinking. It is also super pleasant to read posts of this style.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Like quickthrower2 wrote, plus, the matter of duly post quality. There are two drawbacks: dilution of qualitative posts like signal in noise, and that each post should have inherent value (not cheap). Safeguarding personal expression (of the person as it is), every member should do their homework. This also involves finding the «strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says». You seem to entail from the formulation of that guideline («...easier to criticize») that only strawman arguments are discriminated: too literal. For that matter, one could have mentioned «curious conversation», «shallow dismissals», «insinuations». You should take the guidelines as a whole - the intention - instead of just their formulated parts (which are not a lean complete formal logical corpus from which all consequences can be entailed through sheer syntactical deduction). Literally, a mandate is there against what «degrades discussion».