5 ms·

One could argue that the complete and utter strawman by the other poster is more likely to start a flamewar than someone asking if they understood the actual po

One could argue that the complete and utter strawman by the other poster is more likely to start a flamewar than someone asking if they understood the actual point. But let me guess, if I press you on this I'm going to get banned in a week or so for such and such reason. something something assume good faith?

dang 4y ago
> One could argue that Sure, but it always feels like the other person started it and did worse—so everybody always argues that.* Let's assume you are right and the other person is wrong. Posting an unsubstantive snark is the worst way to respond. It poisons the atmosphere, evokes worse from others, and ultimately discredits your own position (which, if you're right, means you're discrediting the truth—and that hurts everyone**). What you should do instead is one of the following: (1) respectfully provide correct information, so we can all learn; or (2) chalk it up to the internet being wrong about everything and just move on. * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=%22always%20feels%22%20other%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... ** https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  guidelines state to assume good faith, I asked if they understood the actual point. What's happened here is my assumption of good faith with a question got turned into a warning by the mod because they, themselves, did not assume good faith on my part. So the question becomes, are those guidelines taken seriously by the moderators of this site or not? If they are, then maybe admit to your error and lets all just move on.
  - dang 4y ago
    It was obviously an unsubstantive comment, unduly personal, and basically a variation on "did you even read the article" which the site guidelines ask people not to post. That makes it flamebait, regardless of your intention when you posted it. I don't think it was a borderline call, nor is it hard to understand. Ironically, the sort of legalistic pleading you're resorting to is a sign of a lack of the good faith you're claiming. So is the style of your reply sequence: never admit or accept a thing, never address what the other person says, and simply bring up a new argument every time. These are troll tactics, whether you're using them that way intentionally or not (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=troll%20effects%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), and part of how we moderate HN is not to dance that way.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      One wonders if calling someone a troll could be considered flamebait.
      - dang 4y ago
        Perhaps it could, and I was careful not to do that.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        It's never been clear to me why some people think implication cannot be considered an accusation. You jumped the gun and have caused more issues than you've avoided. Your warning was more about preparation to ban me than anything related to the actual conversation. I get it. I understand. Just do it now if you're so inclined, it will save both our time.
        dang 4y ago
        I wasn't preparing to ban you! I looked at your history quickly and what I saw was mostly pretty good. I'm just asking you not to post things like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33643127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33643127 for what ought to be obvious reasons. Re the word 'troll', the link I provided points to a thwack of explanations of how precisely we use that word. It doesn't have to do with impugning someone's intent (which we have no way of knowing); it has to do with the impact that certain kinds of posts tend to have on the threads (which we have plenty of ways of knowing, as they are externally observable). I'm not accusing you, by implication or otherwise, of anything more than making such a post. That's why I asked you not to do that!
nawgz 4y ago
The other poster took the idea you expressed - that "[crypto is] 100% speculative and nothing else" - and further explored the idea, and some markets they have seen where the price action either devolves or remains rational. What exactly did he do that was a "strawman"? Why are you so angry? It was an interesting comment thread, and then you are acting as if persecuted by the other commenter and HN moderators.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  They spent 90% of their post talking about gold also being speculative rather than crypto. I asked if they understood my actual point because I was never denying that gold had speculation, but that when that speculation collapses gold still has value due to it's application in the physical world. They obviously misunderstood me.

dang 4y ago

> One could argue that Sure, but it always feels like the other person started it and did worse—so everybody always argues that.* Let's assume you are right and the other person is wrong. Posting an unsubstantive snark is the worst way to respond. It poisons the atmosphere, evokes worse from others, and ultimately discredits your own position (which, if you're right, means you're discrediting the truth—and that hurts everyone**). What you should do instead is one of the following: (1) respectfully provide correct information, so we can all learn; or (2) chalk it up to the internet being wrong about everything and just move on. * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=%22always%20feels%22%20other%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... ** https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
guidelines state to assume good faith, I asked if they understood the actual point. What's happened here is my assumption of good faith with a question got turned into a warning by the mod because they, themselves, did not assume good faith on my part. So the question becomes, are those guidelines taken seriously by the moderators of this site or not? If they are, then maybe admit to your error and lets all just move on.
- dang 4y ago
  It was obviously an unsubstantive comment, unduly personal, and basically a variation on "did you even read the article" which the site guidelines ask people not to post. That makes it flamebait, regardless of your intention when you posted it. I don't think it was a borderline call, nor is it hard to understand. Ironically, the sort of legalistic pleading you're resorting to is a sign of a lack of the good faith you're claiming. So is the style of your reply sequence: never admit or accept a thing, never address what the other person says, and simply bring up a new argument every time. These are troll tactics, whether you're using them that way intentionally or not (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=troll%20effects%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), and part of how we moderate HN is not to dance that way.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    One wonders if calling someone a troll could be considered flamebait.
    - dang 4y ago
      Perhaps it could, and I was careful not to do that.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        It's never been clear to me why some people think implication cannot be considered an accusation. You jumped the gun and have caused more issues than you've avoided. Your warning was more about preparation to ban me than anything related to the actual conversation. I get it. I understand. Just do it now if you're so inclined, it will save both our time.
        dang 4y ago
        I wasn't preparing to ban you! I looked at your history quickly and what I saw was mostly pretty good. I'm just asking you not to post things like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33643127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33643127 for what ought to be obvious reasons. Re the word 'troll', the link I provided points to a thwack of explanations of how precisely we use that word. It doesn't have to do with impugning someone's intent (which we have no way of knowing); it has to do with the impact that certain kinds of posts tend to have on the threads (which we have plenty of ways of knowing, as they are externally observable). I'm not accusing you, by implication or otherwise, of anything more than making such a post. That's why I asked you not to do that!

nawgz 4y ago

The other poster took the idea you expressed - that "[crypto is] 100% speculative and nothing else" - and further explored the idea, and some markets they have seen where the price action either devolves or remains rational. What exactly did he do that was a "strawman"? Why are you so angry? It was an interesting comment thread, and then you are acting as if persecuted by the other commenter and HN moderators.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
They spent 90% of their post talking about gold also being speculative rather than crypto. I asked if they understood my actual point because I was never denying that gold had speculation, but that when that speculation collapses gold still has value due to it's application in the physical world. They obviously misunderstood me.