4 ms·

> The guideline is not that the form is not annoying - some people, like you, will find it annoying I'm not arguing that the guideline can be breached when som

> The guideline is not that the form is not annoying - some people, like you, will find it annoying I'm not arguing that the guideline can be breached when some people find it annoying. That would be silly. I'm arguing that posting articles as trains of social media posts may not be tangential nor merely a matter of formatting. If that's the case (I agree it's 'arguable'), then complaining about them isn't in breach of the guidelines. > This is pretty ahistorical. Claiming that posting multiple social media objects is a mere 'formatting' alteration to our legacy of textual culture is pretty ahistorical.

pvg 4y ago
complaining about them isn't in breach of the guidelines. It is, the guideline was written specifically to address the repetitive twitter complaints - you can find this explanation in the mod commentary. Also, pretty much anything repetitive runs counter to the rubric of the forum and this complaint is very, very repetitive. our legacy of textual culture Our 'legacy of textual culture' contains a huge variety of formats and representations. The notion that some single one is a representative standard, let alone has lasted for millennia is not an accurate one.
- aussiesnack 4y ago
  > you can find this explanation in the mod commentary. If the guidelines are unclear, and arbitrarily rule non-articles in as articles, then they must be rewritten to make the fiat clear. > Our 'legacy of textual culture' contains a huge variety of formats and representations. The notion that some single one is a representative standard, let alone has lasted for millennia is not an accurate one. Irrelevant, as no-one made that claim. Your unevidenced insistence on your personal take on a novel tech as inarguably part of a historical tradition is just quiet shouting. I disagree, but agree it's arguable. You think it's not arguable, because it's obvious to you, and you believe what's obvious to you should be enforced.
  - pvg 4y ago
    If the guidelines are unclear Hence the clarification. Hopefully it's clear now. no-one made that claim. You made the claim - "the multimillenial standard interface for connected text". There's no such standard.
    - aussiesnack 4y ago
      > Hence the clarification. Hopefully it's clear now Nope. Just that you personally rule something as tangential that I claim is not. Your personal preferences aren't present in the guidelines (I've read them). If you wish them to be so, please rewrite the guidelines. > You made the claim I did not. I claimed that there is such a thing as textual articles, ie. an existential claim. I didn't claim that all text, or all articles, or all textual articles, share a single format. They exist, and claiming that something entirely different (a chain of social media objects) falls under the same head is false. Claiming that two different categories of things are, in fact, different, is not 'tangential', or related only to 'formatting'.
      - pvg 4y ago
        Just that you personally rule something Oh I see the problem. No, I'm not personally claiming this, I'm trying to explain the context and motivation of the site guidelines. Here are some relevant comments from the site moderator: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33838162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33838162 and in endless glory: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20tangential%20annoyances&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... The guideline is there because of the repetitive twitter complaints, I'm not making this up as a fun messageboard hypothetical. Complaining about tweets being on twitter is a well-established off-topic topic. please rewrite the guidelines That is impractical for a number of reasons (i.e. the guidelines can't be exhaustive and also aren't, by design) which, coincidentally is also a subject of much moderator commentary. Happy to dig it up for you if interested. I did not. I mean, you talked about this millennial-something standard but there's obviously no such a standard. That's all. I'm happy to accept it as a rhetorical flourish and move on.

pvg 4y ago

complaining about them isn't in breach of the guidelines. It is, the guideline was written specifically to address the repetitive twitter complaints - you can find this explanation in the mod commentary. Also, pretty much anything repetitive runs counter to the rubric of the forum and this complaint is very, very repetitive. our legacy of textual culture Our 'legacy of textual culture' contains a huge variety of formats and representations. The notion that some single one is a representative standard, let alone has lasted for millennia is not an accurate one.

aussiesnack 4y ago
> you can find this explanation in the mod commentary. If the guidelines are unclear, and arbitrarily rule non-articles in as articles, then they must be rewritten to make the fiat clear. > Our 'legacy of textual culture' contains a huge variety of formats and representations. The notion that some single one is a representative standard, let alone has lasted for millennia is not an accurate one. Irrelevant, as no-one made that claim. Your unevidenced insistence on your personal take on a novel tech as inarguably part of a historical tradition is just quiet shouting. I disagree, but agree it's arguable. You think it's not arguable, because it's obvious to you, and you believe what's obvious to you should be enforced.
- pvg 4y ago
  If the guidelines are unclear Hence the clarification. Hopefully it's clear now. no-one made that claim. You made the claim - "the multimillenial standard interface for connected text". There's no such standard.
  - aussiesnack 4y ago
    > Hence the clarification. Hopefully it's clear now Nope. Just that you personally rule something as tangential that I claim is not. Your personal preferences aren't present in the guidelines (I've read them). If you wish them to be so, please rewrite the guidelines. > You made the claim I did not. I claimed that there is such a thing as textual articles, ie. an existential claim. I didn't claim that all text, or all articles, or all textual articles, share a single format. They exist, and claiming that something entirely different (a chain of social media objects) falls under the same head is false. Claiming that two different categories of things are, in fact, different, is not 'tangential', or related only to 'formatting'.
    - pvg 4y ago
      Just that you personally rule something Oh I see the problem. No, I'm not personally claiming this, I'm trying to explain the context and motivation of the site guidelines. Here are some relevant comments from the site moderator: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33838162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33838162 and in endless glory: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20tangential%20annoyances&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... The guideline is there because of the repetitive twitter complaints, I'm not making this up as a fun messageboard hypothetical. Complaining about tweets being on twitter is a well-established off-topic topic. please rewrite the guidelines That is impractical for a number of reasons (i.e. the guidelines can't be exhaustive and also aren't, by design) which, coincidentally is also a subject of much moderator commentary. Happy to dig it up for you if interested. I did not. I mean, you talked about this millennial-something standard but there's obviously no such a standard. That's all. I'm happy to accept it as a rhetorical flourish and move on.