3 ms·

>"It's true that there's an asymmetry in that it's much easier for the people making positive comments not to break the site guidelines. In a way that's not fai

>"It's true that there's an asymmetry in that it's much easier for the people making positive comments not to break the site guidelines. In a way that's not fair—but it applies to all threads equally, regardless of whether the topic is monarchy or something else. It's also an unfairness we can't do much about—it's intrinsic to the problem of how to operate this forum." Why are positive but controversial comments fine, but negative but controversial comments bad? Why is what's positive and negative defined solely in relation to the thread being posted in? What if Vladimir Putin had a heart attack and dropped dead tomorrow. Certainly, that would be far more historically consequential than the death of the Queen. It would therefore have even better claim to being posted on HN. Would you only allow positive comments on that thread? Comments that eulogized Putin as an emblem of stability and moral authority? Would you freeze or delete any comments that questioned that response? I say this not to be facetious. It's a more extreme example, but I don't think it's qualitatively different. Clearly, it doesn't make sense to allow only positive comments regardless of the subject. When it's highly ideological and contested - as is true of both Putin and the Queen - that just arbitrarily empowers one side of the debate and infuriates and alienates the other half. I honestly think the only fair response - short of superhuman feats of moderation - is to delete the thread.

pvg 4y ago
Why are positive but controversial comments fine, but negative but controversial comments bad? That's not what the comment says, though. It doesn't say anything about 'controversial', just that positive comments more readily avoid running into guideline trouble. Maybe it helps if you replace 'positive' with 'boring and anodyne', since the mechanism still applies. Boring and anodyne comments usually don't require as much moderation.
- Emma_Goldman 4y ago
  But it is what happened in practice. The Queen is controversial: whether you laud her reign or question it, that's true. The whole point is that praising the Queen as a 'moral authority' is not anodyne. As far as I can see, the PG principle that Dang refers back to is disanalogous. PG was speaking about the valence of comments - whether they were nice or mean - not whether they supported or opposed an ideological position.
  - pvg 4y ago
    But it is what happened in practice. Only if practice includes arguing against things that weren't said. Dang didn't say controversial, I didn't say praising the Queen as a moral authority is anodyne. You can work your way back to whatever conclusion you like that way, but don't substitute your own reasoning for that of your interlocutors.
    - Emma_Goldman 4y ago
      Practice refers to what's done. I am really trying to have a good faith conversation here. PaulHoule posted that the Queen was a 'moral authority'. I replied setting out a few reasons why that might not be true. What did Dang do? Tell me off and detach my subthread, while the original comment from PaulHoule still stands. Clearly, that's telling me that positive but controversial comments are fine, but negative but controversial comments are not. That is replicated across the entire thread. Praise of the Queen is controversial (my interpretation) but allowed (moderation in practice). Criticism of the Queen is controversial (my interpretation), but disallowed (moderation in practice).
      - tptacek 4y ago
        Your comment looks like a close call. The "moral obsequiousness" thing was probably too sharp and personalized, and if you're arguing that someone who is being broadly mourned is unworthy of warm regard, you probably want to make that point in more than just two sentences. As your statements get more controversial, they need to be written more carefully, because you have to consider more than just the impact of your ideas on the world, but also how your writing will affect the thread: even if you're absolutely right and making an important, intellectually curious point, if the way you writes it starts a 30 comment slapfight, you've done more harm than good. I think if you'd written this comment on any other day, it wouldn't have been singled out, and also that there's a colorable argument that you got swept up in a bunch of really awful comments that happened to express the same sentiment. But also: you could have just put more effort into it. As it stands, the comment you're talking about could be persuasive only to someone who takes your word on things, because it doesn't support any of the arguments it makes. (I don't care at all about QE2 other than to say that I once made a joke about the death of Princess Diana in a bar in Calgary a few months after the event, and that is a mistake I won't make again, so there might be something to the idea that being casually and curtly dismissive of the Commonwealth's feeling about the queen is a poor arguing strategy.)

pvg 4y ago

Why are positive but controversial comments fine, but negative but controversial comments bad? That's not what the comment says, though. It doesn't say anything about 'controversial', just that positive comments more readily avoid running into guideline trouble. Maybe it helps if you replace 'positive' with 'boring and anodyne', since the mechanism still applies. Boring and anodyne comments usually don't require as much moderation.

Emma_Goldman 4y ago
But it is what happened in practice. The Queen is controversial: whether you laud her reign or question it, that's true. The whole point is that praising the Queen as a 'moral authority' is not anodyne. As far as I can see, the PG principle that Dang refers back to is disanalogous. PG was speaking about the valence of comments - whether they were nice or mean - not whether they supported or opposed an ideological position.
- pvg 4y ago
  But it is what happened in practice. Only if practice includes arguing against things that weren't said. Dang didn't say controversial, I didn't say praising the Queen as a moral authority is anodyne. You can work your way back to whatever conclusion you like that way, but don't substitute your own reasoning for that of your interlocutors.
  - Emma_Goldman 4y ago
    Practice refers to what's done. I am really trying to have a good faith conversation here. PaulHoule posted that the Queen was a 'moral authority'. I replied setting out a few reasons why that might not be true. What did Dang do? Tell me off and detach my subthread, while the original comment from PaulHoule still stands. Clearly, that's telling me that positive but controversial comments are fine, but negative but controversial comments are not. That is replicated across the entire thread. Praise of the Queen is controversial (my interpretation) but allowed (moderation in practice). Criticism of the Queen is controversial (my interpretation), but disallowed (moderation in practice).
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Your comment looks like a close call. The "moral obsequiousness" thing was probably too sharp and personalized, and if you're arguing that someone who is being broadly mourned is unworthy of warm regard, you probably want to make that point in more than just two sentences. As your statements get more controversial, they need to be written more carefully, because you have to consider more than just the impact of your ideas on the world, but also how your writing will affect the thread: even if you're absolutely right and making an important, intellectually curious point, if the way you writes it starts a 30 comment slapfight, you've done more harm than good. I think if you'd written this comment on any other day, it wouldn't have been singled out, and also that there's a colorable argument that you got swept up in a bunch of really awful comments that happened to express the same sentiment. But also: you could have just put more effort into it. As it stands, the comment you're talking about could be persuasive only to someone who takes your word on things, because it doesn't support any of the arguments it makes. (I don't care at all about QE2 other than to say that I once made a joke about the death of Princess Diana in a bar in Calgary a few months after the event, and that is a mistake I won't make again, so there might be something to the idea that being casually and curtly dismissive of the Commonwealth's feeling about the queen is a poor arguing strategy.)