3 ms·

Because this isn’t a formal debate, and generally we trust in others’ firsthand experiences, especially when they link to a related article, even if it isn’t pr

by borski 5y ago

Because this isn’t a formal debate, and generally we trust in others’ firsthand experiences, especially when they link to a related article, even if it isn’t precisely the story that happened to them. The GP is, in this case, an original source and as per the HN guidelines [1] we assume good faith. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

xeromal 5y ago
Thanks for linking the rules. I'll accept that.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
The sentence you conveniently left out leaves out the context of "assume good faith": > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. That does not, in any way, say "assume anecdotes are trustworthy." Nowhere in the rules does it say or even imply this. It is also laughable to suggest the HN community assumes good faith; the comments section has a substantial amount of comments from software engineers thinking they're qualified to rip apart the work of people who are professionals in their fields, usually with high levels of derision. Regardless of what HN rules say, anecdotes are literally the worst way of supporting an argument, subject to no end of observer biases.
- borski 5y ago
  1) I am not saying it is proof or a valid argument. I am saying we should not assume the poster is lying just because they’re uncomfortable providing details about something that is likely personal or legal in nature. 2) That there are HN commenters who don’t follow the guidelines doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. 3) I did not “conveniently” leave out that sentence, which implies malice on my part. I left it out because I deemed it irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. The strongest plausible interpretation of the GP’s comment is that they are telling the truth but can’t or are uncomfortable sharing details due to legal or personal matters, especially given that it was posted with a throwaway account, which the guidelines also specify is OK for sensitive information, implying that the GP was posting… sensitive information. As before: please try to assume good faith.
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    > I left it out because I deemed it irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. The scope of that sentence assigned to it by the only other sentence in that paragraph was indeed "irrelevant" to your claim "assume good faith" is a general policy for HN comments. It was beyond disingenuous, and you're still being disingenuous; you're now shifting the goalposts. > As before: please try to assume good faith. You selectively quoted in a way that radically changed meaning in order to chastise another user making a comment you didn't like. This isn't a matter of "faith." You're running around telling other people how to act.
    - borski 5y ago
      No, I didn’t. If you read it even with that sentence attached it still applies, as I clarified in my followup comment to you. It just wasn’t needed for that particular reading, and your reading was not the strongest plausible interpretation. The goal posts have remained unchanged. Furthermore, I read through some of your other comments and might add: I haven’t found one in which you’ve been anything but negative. Please consider reading through your comments and adjusting your general demeanor on this forum; I’d argue there’s a reason every third or fourth comment of yours gets downvoted. That said, I think we’re done here. Enjoy the rest of your night; or day, wherever you are. :)
- catlifeonmars 5y ago
  > It is also laughable to suggest the HN community assumes good faith Do you have examples of similar forums that are better examples? This isn’t a rhetorical question; I haven’t been able to find a better forum where the commentary is (mostly) full of honest, thorough, and respectful discourse. If HN is “laughable”, I’m certainly interested in recalibrating.

by borski 5y ago

xeromal 5y ago

Thanks for linking the rules. I'll accept that.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

The sentence you conveniently left out leaves out the context of "assume good faith": > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. That does not, in any way, say "assume anecdotes are trustworthy." Nowhere in the rules does it say or even imply this. It is also laughable to suggest the HN community assumes good faith; the comments section has a substantial amount of comments from software engineers thinking they're qualified to rip apart the work of people who are professionals in their fields, usually with high levels of derision. Regardless of what HN rules say, anecdotes are literally the worst way of supporting an argument, subject to no end of observer biases.

borski 5y ago
1) I am not saying it is proof or a valid argument. I am saying we should not assume the poster is lying just because they’re uncomfortable providing details about something that is likely personal or legal in nature. 2) That there are HN commenters who don’t follow the guidelines doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. 3) I did not “conveniently” leave out that sentence, which implies malice on my part. I left it out because I deemed it irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. The strongest plausible interpretation of the GP’s comment is that they are telling the truth but can’t or are uncomfortable sharing details due to legal or personal matters, especially given that it was posted with a throwaway account, which the guidelines also specify is OK for sensitive information, implying that the GP was posting… sensitive information. As before: please try to assume good faith.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  > I left it out because I deemed it irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. The scope of that sentence assigned to it by the only other sentence in that paragraph was indeed "irrelevant" to your claim "assume good faith" is a general policy for HN comments. It was beyond disingenuous, and you're still being disingenuous; you're now shifting the goalposts. > As before: please try to assume good faith. You selectively quoted in a way that radically changed meaning in order to chastise another user making a comment you didn't like. This isn't a matter of "faith." You're running around telling other people how to act.
  - borski 5y ago
    No, I didn’t. If you read it even with that sentence attached it still applies, as I clarified in my followup comment to you. It just wasn’t needed for that particular reading, and your reading was not the strongest plausible interpretation. The goal posts have remained unchanged. Furthermore, I read through some of your other comments and might add: I haven’t found one in which you’ve been anything but negative. Please consider reading through your comments and adjusting your general demeanor on this forum; I’d argue there’s a reason every third or fourth comment of yours gets downvoted. That said, I think we’re done here. Enjoy the rest of your night; or day, wherever you are. :)
catlifeonmars 5y ago
> It is also laughable to suggest the HN community assumes good faith Do you have examples of similar forums that are better examples? This isn’t a rhetorical question; I haven’t been able to find a better forum where the commentary is (mostly) full of honest, thorough, and respectful discourse. If HN is “laughable”, I’m certainly interested in recalibrating.