3 ms·

Drafts are modified or rejected because of expert/public commentary. As such, it's weird for dang to consider proposals offtopic since HN is not supposed to be

Drafts are modified or rejected because of expert/public commentary. As such, it's weird for dang to consider proposals offtopic since HN is not supposed to be like Reddit a general audience discussion platform. Parliamentary committees are where the true work is done both in the US and the EU, so there is always value in attracting attention to their work in progress. Finally, many drafts may not go anywhere but they are often used as a foundation for future legislation which does go through.

pvg 4y ago
The argument isn't that these things are somehow intrinsically bad, they're just not good topics for HN. One reason is that they tend to attract a lot of repetitive advocacy which is normal for proposed legislation but is pretty bad for interestingness, especially for a forum with 30 front page slots. It's really easy to make an argument for almost anything being somehow within HN's rubric or important in some way. These arguments are often true! But that also tells you they aren't useful criteria for deciding what works and doesn't on the forum since if you accepted them all, everything is good for the forum. Repetition and repetition-generation is HN-bad. Another example are software release posts. Those are super HN-y by topic but the bulk of them are also not great HN posts and routinely get downweighted because they tend to produce the same generic discussions which are fine in general but not (for HN purposes) at the release cadence of most active software projects.
- class4behavior 4y ago
  That's both a slippery slope and a strawman argument. No one argued we should allow all links to any legislative work no matter its significance. Not to mention that HN does allow repetition as long as there is a fair period of silence between similar submissions. The criteria has always been that of relevance, impact, and depth. So what mods could demand is a submission statement with a quote/source describing the momentum or the viability of the discussed regulation . In the EU when it's at the public consultation or commission adoption stage it's already serious enough, in the US you want to some evidence the bill won't just die in the next chamber.
  - pvg 4y ago
    That's both a slippery slope and a strawman argument That’s just the messageboard version of ‘ur mom’. Ur mom is a slippery slope and a strawman!
    - class4behavior 4y ago
      First, that is nonsense. Just because there are people accusing others of fallacious arguments for no good reason doesn't mean you can always just disregard the claim. Second, you're the one not addressing my actual points but I'm supposed to be the one who's dismissive and immature? You can just search for proposed bill, draft eu, and such. There's plenty evidence that the argument such submissions are offtopic is false. You then insinuate that this would lead to a load of overly similar submissions and conversations by comparing legislation to software releases. How's that not a slippery slope? Where will all those tech bills suddenly come from? Besides, I'm not arguing for more of the same but simply against the notion that early stage submissions are not appropriate for HN. This would not bring any major changes to the queue.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        This thread is getting silly. He's just trying to help explain some of the rationale behind the rule. But the rule itself is real; you can't argue it out of existence. You should mail hn@ycombinator.com if you've got concerns. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=proposed%20bills%20author%3Adang&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

pvg 4y ago

The argument isn't that these things are somehow intrinsically bad, they're just not good topics for HN. One reason is that they tend to attract a lot of repetitive advocacy which is normal for proposed legislation but is pretty bad for interestingness, especially for a forum with 30 front page slots. It's really easy to make an argument for almost anything being somehow within HN's rubric or important in some way. These arguments are often true! But that also tells you they aren't useful criteria for deciding what works and doesn't on the forum since if you accepted them all, everything is good for the forum. Repetition and repetition-generation is HN-bad. Another example are software release posts. Those are super HN-y by topic but the bulk of them are also not great HN posts and routinely get downweighted because they tend to produce the same generic discussions which are fine in general but not (for HN purposes) at the release cadence of most active software projects.

class4behavior 4y ago
That's both a slippery slope and a strawman argument. No one argued we should allow all links to any legislative work no matter its significance. Not to mention that HN does allow repetition as long as there is a fair period of silence between similar submissions. The criteria has always been that of relevance, impact, and depth. So what mods could demand is a submission statement with a quote/source describing the momentum or the viability of the discussed regulation . In the EU when it's at the public consultation or commission adoption stage it's already serious enough, in the US you want to some evidence the bill won't just die in the next chamber.
- pvg 4y ago
  That's both a slippery slope and a strawman argument That’s just the messageboard version of ‘ur mom’. Ur mom is a slippery slope and a strawman!
  - class4behavior 4y ago
    First, that is nonsense. Just because there are people accusing others of fallacious arguments for no good reason doesn't mean you can always just disregard the claim. Second, you're the one not addressing my actual points but I'm supposed to be the one who's dismissive and immature? You can just search for proposed bill, draft eu, and such. There's plenty evidence that the argument such submissions are offtopic is false. You then insinuate that this would lead to a load of overly similar submissions and conversations by comparing legislation to software releases. How's that not a slippery slope? Where will all those tech bills suddenly come from? Besides, I'm not arguing for more of the same but simply against the notion that early stage submissions are not appropriate for HN. This would not bring any major changes to the queue.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      This thread is getting silly. He's just trying to help explain some of the rationale behind the rule. But the rule itself is real; you can't argue it out of existence. You should mail hn@ycombinator.com if you've got concerns. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=proposed%20bills%20author%3Adang&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...