3 ms·

Your interpretation doesn't render a specific and concrete word ambiguous. There is nothing to disambiguate. However, even if it were ambiguous, that does not

Your interpretation doesn't render a specific and concrete word ambiguous. There is nothing to disambiguate. However, even if it were ambiguous, that does not mean I broke the guidelines, as you allege. Your unwritten rule about the burden of disambiguation is not part of those guidelines. If you're going to hold people to it, and claim they broke the guidelines when they fail to follow it, perhaps it ought to be.

dang 4y ago
Your GP comment definitely broke the site guidelines - at a minimum the ones asking commenters not to post shallow dismissals and not to call names. I know that's an interpretation, but it's one that's well within the standards that we've applied here for years and years. It's not a borderline call.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  In a quasirandom selection of the hundreds of instances of the term being used on this site, there are none that you claimed broke the site guidelines or you characterized as namecalling. Can you point to a single time, before my comment, that characterizing something as pseudoscience has been deemed namecalling? Or deemed to break the site guidelines?
  - dang 4y ago
    "Pseudoscience" is not a neutral term, it's a pejorative. Pejoratives in internet comments are edgy to begin with, and pejoratives without explanation are name-calling, in the sense that we use the term. That's the logic, and I don't think there need to exist previous examples for it to be valid—it's surely possible for something to be valid the first time it happens—but FWIW, I found these: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32286303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32286303 (July 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29553488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29553488 (Dec 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29037237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29037237 (Oct 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28379692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28379692 (Sept 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27809832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27809832 (July 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27636047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27636047 (June 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25975353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25975353 (Jan 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21685942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21685942 (Dec 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21455081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21455081 (Nov 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18804177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18804177 (Jan 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18249487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18249487 (Oct 2018) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17645647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17645647 (July 2018) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15997545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15997545 (Dec 2017) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11421256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11421256 (April 2016) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10466297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10466297 (Oct 2015)
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      Very well. Thank you for that. I feel I've probably exhausted your tolerance for this discussion at this time. However, I respectfully request that over the medium to long term you reconsider this unwritten rule. A specific substantive critique isn't namecalling nor is it shallow. If HN feels that there's sufficient emotional baggage to certain accusations (such as that something is pseudoscience) that the allegation must be accompanied by detailed explanation to meet the guidelines, that's certainly your prerogative. But there's no way for anyone to know that from the guidelines as they are written. As a longtime member who tries to make positive contributions, I was frankly shocked at your reaction. A data point, to use or not use as you see fit.
      - dang 4y ago
        I appreciate what you're saying and I appreciate your positive contributions over the years. I know you're well-intentioned and that matters far more than any of the minutiae here. When the only available medium of communication is these little blobs of internet text, it's easy for things to sometimes get into a snag. If there's any remaining disagreement, it's most likely a simple misunderstanding. Let's not worry about it.

dang 4y ago

Your GP comment definitely broke the site guidelines - at a minimum the ones asking commenters not to post shallow dismissals and not to call names. I know that's an interpretation, but it's one that's well within the standards that we've applied here for years and years. It's not a borderline call.

torstenvl 4y ago
In a quasirandom selection of the hundreds of instances of the term being used on this site, there are none that you claimed broke the site guidelines or you characterized as namecalling. Can you point to a single time, before my comment, that characterizing something as pseudoscience has been deemed namecalling? Or deemed to break the site guidelines?
- dang 4y ago
  "Pseudoscience" is not a neutral term, it's a pejorative. Pejoratives in internet comments are edgy to begin with, and pejoratives without explanation are name-calling, in the sense that we use the term. That's the logic, and I don't think there need to exist previous examples for it to be valid—it's surely possible for something to be valid the first time it happens—but FWIW, I found these: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32286303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32286303 (July 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29553488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29553488 (Dec 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29037237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29037237 (Oct 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28379692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28379692 (Sept 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27809832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27809832 (July 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27636047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27636047 (June 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25975353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25975353 (Jan 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21685942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21685942 (Dec 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21455081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21455081 (Nov 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18804177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18804177 (Jan 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18249487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18249487 (Oct 2018) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17645647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17645647 (July 2018) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15997545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15997545 (Dec 2017) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11421256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11421256 (April 2016) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10466297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10466297 (Oct 2015)
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    Very well. Thank you for that. I feel I've probably exhausted your tolerance for this discussion at this time. However, I respectfully request that over the medium to long term you reconsider this unwritten rule. A specific substantive critique isn't namecalling nor is it shallow. If HN feels that there's sufficient emotional baggage to certain accusations (such as that something is pseudoscience) that the allegation must be accompanied by detailed explanation to meet the guidelines, that's certainly your prerogative. But there's no way for anyone to know that from the guidelines as they are written. As a longtime member who tries to make positive contributions, I was frankly shocked at your reaction. A data point, to use or not use as you see fit.
    - dang 4y ago
      I appreciate what you're saying and I appreciate your positive contributions over the years. I know you're well-intentioned and that matters far more than any of the minutiae here. When the only available medium of communication is these little blobs of internet text, it's easy for things to sometimes get into a snag. If there's any remaining disagreement, it's most likely a simple misunderstanding. Let's not worry about it.