2 ms·

I'd rather not read back because then I'd have to read a really lousy comment in which you decide to focus on a single detail of this thread you find provocativ

by pvg 5y ago

I'd rather not read back because then I'd have to read a really lousy comment in which you decide to focus on a single detail of this thread you find provocative, deploy a horrid flamy 'who are the real racists' trope and then complain about downvotes, all of which the guidelines ask you not to do. Beside just being kind of awful. Just don't this shit.

giantg2 5y ago
"I'd rather not read back because then I'd have to read a really lousy comment in which you decide to focus on a single detail of this thread you find provocative, deploy a horrid flamy 'who are the real racists' trope and then complain about downvotes, all of which the guidelines ask you not to do. Beside just being kind of awful. Just don't this shit." Please do read back because you have you're facts wrong. My comment mentioned the racist labeling issue. But it primarily was focused at bringing up the issue of how housing preferences are a big part of costs. It seems nobody wanted to talk about that part and instead chose to go after this other part. I don't believe I violated any guidelines. My comment was intended to talk to the substance of the article (housing costs) and also call into question the validity of insinuating that people raising potentially valid issues in their communities is somehow racist. The author doesn't even address the traffic claims in detail. It's possible the person rasing the traffic issue isn't opposed to the project based on race but on another reason like cost to the community to re-engineering the intersection (it's quite common to make developers pay for the traffic modifications and allow the project to continue). I don't see my comment as being flame bait. I had no intention of it spawning such extensive replies. I believe all of my comments have been high quality and served a valid point/correction/etc. If you can't see that, can you explain why? You claim I'm employing a horrid troupe, yet this seems to violate the HN guideline to be charitable. I'd much rather discuss the actual content than this discussion about each other's comments. I don't believe I complained about downvoting. I merely asked why. To me this seems fair to ask as discourse can generate new knowledge and that curiosity is a big part of hacker culture. There are a lot of other users on this site who have seen downvotes abused and would like to see comments attached.
- tptacek 5y ago
  The guidelines, linked at the bottom of the page, say "don't comment about the voting on comments", which is what you did. Please don't do that anymore. That there are a lot of users who would like to see discussions of downvotes is why the guideline is there.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Ok, will do. If you are enforcing the guidelines (no idea if you're a mod or someone else), can you remove the main post since it clearly violates guidelines for being a political topic that is not a new phenomenon, and also counsel the other individuals for violating the guidelines by misinterpreting my comments and calling my opinions/discussion and curiosity "shit"? I try to abide by the guidelines. Would a better way to be curious be "why disagree without comments?". I would like to facilitate discussion in accordance with the hacking principle and HN guideline of being curious (it would really suck if I'm not allowed to be curious here). I'm not sure how we can facilitate this discussion without asking for additional clarification or reasoning. This should lead to discussion of the content, and maybe provide one or more parties with additional knowledge or clarify a misunderstanding. Certainly it provides more value than downvoting a comment just because one disagrees with it, as votes don't contribute to discussion nor curiosity.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Allowing for (even encouraging) downvotes without comment or explanation is an explicit goal of the site, which was designed by someone who was irritated with the clutter of superficial negative comments. I'm not a mod; all I can do is cajole.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Oh, thats different from what I've heard. Do you have a source? I'm wondering what the context and details were. My understanding was that downvotes without comments are appropriate/encouraged for specific types of comments, like bots, spam, comments without any substance, or violations of the guidelines. Essentially, comments in reply to those do not supply any additonal content or contribute to the discussion (hence the additional clarification in the guideline about boring reading in relation to comments on voting), and responding to them can just turn into a thread of comments that lack any substance. However, a comment that seeks to discuss various points related to the article and are downvoted simply because people disagree seem to violate the principle of curiosity and discussion. Basically, I thought questions out of curiosity, even around downvotes were ok. Also that downvoting is more or less targeted at guideline violations and not just disagreement. But Maybe I'm taking dang out of context. Like I'm not trying to argue my downvotes and change their minds. I just want to know why I was downvoted so I can learn. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30346954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30346954

by pvg 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

"I'd rather not read back because then I'd have to read a really lousy comment in which you decide to focus on a single detail of this thread you find provocative, deploy a horrid flamy 'who are the real racists' trope and then complain about downvotes, all of which the guidelines ask you not to do. Beside just being kind of awful. Just don't this shit." Please do read back because you have you're facts wrong. My comment mentioned the racist labeling issue. But it primarily was focused at bringing up the issue of how housing preferences are a big part of costs. It seems nobody wanted to talk about that part and instead chose to go after this other part. I don't believe I violated any guidelines. My comment was intended to talk to the substance of the article (housing costs) and also call into question the validity of insinuating that people raising potentially valid issues in their communities is somehow racist. The author doesn't even address the traffic claims in detail. It's possible the person rasing the traffic issue isn't opposed to the project based on race but on another reason like cost to the community to re-engineering the intersection (it's quite common to make developers pay for the traffic modifications and allow the project to continue). I don't see my comment as being flame bait. I had no intention of it spawning such extensive replies. I believe all of my comments have been high quality and served a valid point/correction/etc. If you can't see that, can you explain why? You claim I'm employing a horrid troupe, yet this seems to violate the HN guideline to be charitable. I'd much rather discuss the actual content than this discussion about each other's comments. I don't believe I complained about downvoting. I merely asked why. To me this seems fair to ask as discourse can generate new knowledge and that curiosity is a big part of hacker culture. There are a lot of other users on this site who have seen downvotes abused and would like to see comments attached.

tptacek 5y ago
The guidelines, linked at the bottom of the page, say "don't comment about the voting on comments", which is what you did. Please don't do that anymore. That there are a lot of users who would like to see discussions of downvotes is why the guideline is there.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- giantg2 5y ago
  Ok, will do. If you are enforcing the guidelines (no idea if you're a mod or someone else), can you remove the main post since it clearly violates guidelines for being a political topic that is not a new phenomenon, and also counsel the other individuals for violating the guidelines by misinterpreting my comments and calling my opinions/discussion and curiosity "shit"? I try to abide by the guidelines. Would a better way to be curious be "why disagree without comments?". I would like to facilitate discussion in accordance with the hacking principle and HN guideline of being curious (it would really suck if I'm not allowed to be curious here). I'm not sure how we can facilitate this discussion without asking for additional clarification or reasoning. This should lead to discussion of the content, and maybe provide one or more parties with additional knowledge or clarify a misunderstanding. Certainly it provides more value than downvoting a comment just because one disagrees with it, as votes don't contribute to discussion nor curiosity.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Allowing for (even encouraging) downvotes without comment or explanation is an explicit goal of the site, which was designed by someone who was irritated with the clutter of superficial negative comments. I'm not a mod; all I can do is cajole.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Oh, thats different from what I've heard. Do you have a source? I'm wondering what the context and details were. My understanding was that downvotes without comments are appropriate/encouraged for specific types of comments, like bots, spam, comments without any substance, or violations of the guidelines. Essentially, comments in reply to those do not supply any additonal content or contribute to the discussion (hence the additional clarification in the guideline about boring reading in relation to comments on voting), and responding to them can just turn into a thread of comments that lack any substance. However, a comment that seeks to discuss various points related to the article and are downvoted simply because people disagree seem to violate the principle of curiosity and discussion. Basically, I thought questions out of curiosity, even around downvotes were ok. Also that downvoting is more or less targeted at guideline violations and not just disagreement. But Maybe I'm taking dang out of context. Like I'm not trying to argue my downvotes and change their minds. I just want to know why I was downvoted so I can learn. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30346954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30346954