4 ms·

What is shallow about the comment your answered or flamebait. You might not see any interest in it, but I do see it. He really has a point. Russia does have pro

What is shallow about the comment your answered or flamebait. You might not see any interest in it, but I do see it. He really has a point. Russia does have problems fighting ukraine WITH the help of wagner, how will it fare against both? I feel it's kinda insulting the tone here. I see this trend in hacker news that we use the guidelines as a way to insult or belittle other people's comments. It's agressive but in a cunny way.

dang 3y ago
"Good luck with that" is a trope and "he's already basically lost the war" is grandiose rhetoric. A one-liner consisting of those two things is both shallow and flamebait in the sense that we use those terms. This isn't a borderline call! (but I shouldn't have used a moderation reply as a place to ask "everyone" something, since that could inadvertently generate a mob reaction and that's the last thing we want here) Moderation comments are never intended as an insult or aggressive, but of course it's all too easy to come across that way without meaning to. If you or anyone wants to suggest ways to be more neutral about bringing up the guidelines, I'd be happy to take advice about it. However, that's different from changing the moderation standard, which is well established on HN.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  This isn't kindergarten, I don't want all discussion reduced to anodyne abstractions. I think we can handle a robust exchange of views now and again, even if they're not expressed the way you would express them.
  - dang 3y ago
    No one's asking for 'kindergarten' and I'm a bit puzzled why you would use that word, since the kindergarten side of the internet is the very flamewar dreck we're trying to avoid.
    - rat9988 3y ago
      I think you don't realize that you are in fact treating us as kids or teenagers. Telling someone his, in good faith, comment, is below the guideline threshold is insulting. It's one of the polite, absolutely not vulgar, ways, to say someone's comment is idiotic without answering it. If you think someone hasn't provided enough evidence to back his claim, please ask him to do in a meaningful discussion. The kind of remarks where you just assume someone is just a weird internet troll, do not serve the discussion, nor the website users. Please understand that saying something politely, as in hiding behind the guidelines, doesn't make it acceptable if the message is insulting. We should thrive to build a community based on mutual respect.
      - dang 3y ago
        I don't agree that HN moderation comments are doing anything like that. Most of the posts I reply to aren't idiotic (to use your word), and most comments that might strike me personally as idiotic (again, your word not mine) are within the site guidelines. Moderation isn't about assessing who's right or wrong on a topic. That's the community's job, and I'm pretty sure the bulk of the community would not at all appreciate it if we tried to take that role.
        rat9988 3y ago
        The guidelines are kind of vague on purpose. When you say that some comment is a flamebait it is insulting. When you say that someone's comment is just an internet trope, it's insulting. You don't just enforce guidelines, you also make a very subjective judgement. I'm not going to argue anymore, I feel like talking to a politician that answers with bad faith and dodges the point.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      It's an idiom I use a lot, because 'be nice and polite all the time under any circumstances' is something I associate with kindergarten. Small children don't have flamewars, although I see how they're reminiscent of schoolyard fights. Still, I think posters need to accept some expressive/emotive language in discourse. 'Good luck with that' may be a trope as a way to sarcastically express skepticism, but it's hardly offensive or conversation-terminating.I like to know how people are feeling in regard to a contentious topic, whether or not I find them or their argument agreeable. draining away all emotion/idiom introduces its own problems; callous or cruel remarks may be couched in pseudo-objectivity and the language of necessity/inevitability.
  - pastacacioepepe 3y ago
    > I think we can handle a robust exchange of views now and again, even if they're not expressed the way you would express them. The comment in question didn't add anything to the discussion, it was just a snarky remark. Hence no actual exchange of views could be derived from it, only insults between factions.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      I found it meaningful and efficiently communicated, even though I disagreed with the person's opinion.
- foldr 3y ago
  I think you've slightly missed the mark on this one. Lots of things are tropes (there are tropes in your comment too, such as 'borderline call'), and saying that Putin has basically lost the war (whether true or false) isn't anywhere close to being 'grandiose rhetoric'. I don't think anyone expects you to get things right 100% of the time. It seems to me that calling this one particular comment flamebait was just a mistake. While it's not a very interesting comment, it's at least free of the wild speculation that you can find in many of the unmoderated comments in this thread.
  - dang 3y ago
    I guess my criterion for 'grandiose rhetoric' is the bigness of a claim divided by the amount of information provided to support it. When the numerator is big and the denominator is small, that's what I mean by grandiose. It's one of the most common qualities on the internet, and one of the least interesting. I can't agree that I missed the mark on that comment - what I said seems well within standard mod practice on HN. But it's fine that you disagree - there's always going to be disagreement on specific cases, since we all have different backgrounds and therefore different perceptions. It's the principles that matter.
    - foldr 3y ago
      You asked for constructive suggestions in your original comment. I'd suggest not using the word 'grandiose' in this way. If someone accused me of using 'grandiose rhetoric', then I certainly wouldn't think they just meant to say that I'd made a strong claim without supporting evidence. The denominator is necessarily small as we're talking about a breaking news story obscured by the fog of war. If this is the bar that comments still have to reach in this context, then I wonder if the story should just remain flagged.
      - dang 3y ago
        I appreciate the constructive suggestion! I'm not sure I'm ready to let go of that phrase though. Probably it includes more than I managed to capture in my attempted definition upthread.
mdp2021 3y ago
> What is shallow about the comment Positional without explicit or evident basis.

dang 3y ago

"Good luck with that" is a trope and "he's already basically lost the war" is grandiose rhetoric. A one-liner consisting of those two things is both shallow and flamebait in the sense that we use those terms. This isn't a borderline call! (but I shouldn't have used a moderation reply as a place to ask "everyone" something, since that could inadvertently generate a mob reaction and that's the last thing we want here) Moderation comments are never intended as an insult or aggressive, but of course it's all too easy to come across that way without meaning to. If you or anyone wants to suggest ways to be more neutral about bringing up the guidelines, I'd be happy to take advice about it. However, that's different from changing the moderation standard, which is well established on HN.

anigbrowl 3y ago
This isn't kindergarten, I don't want all discussion reduced to anodyne abstractions. I think we can handle a robust exchange of views now and again, even if they're not expressed the way you would express them.
- dang 3y ago
  No one's asking for 'kindergarten' and I'm a bit puzzled why you would use that word, since the kindergarten side of the internet is the very flamewar dreck we're trying to avoid.
  - rat9988 3y ago
    I think you don't realize that you are in fact treating us as kids or teenagers. Telling someone his, in good faith, comment, is below the guideline threshold is insulting. It's one of the polite, absolutely not vulgar, ways, to say someone's comment is idiotic without answering it. If you think someone hasn't provided enough evidence to back his claim, please ask him to do in a meaningful discussion. The kind of remarks where you just assume someone is just a weird internet troll, do not serve the discussion, nor the website users. Please understand that saying something politely, as in hiding behind the guidelines, doesn't make it acceptable if the message is insulting. We should thrive to build a community based on mutual respect.
    - dang 3y ago
      I don't agree that HN moderation comments are doing anything like that. Most of the posts I reply to aren't idiotic (to use your word), and most comments that might strike me personally as idiotic (again, your word not mine) are within the site guidelines. Moderation isn't about assessing who's right or wrong on a topic. That's the community's job, and I'm pretty sure the bulk of the community would not at all appreciate it if we tried to take that role.
      - rat9988 3y ago
        The guidelines are kind of vague on purpose. When you say that some comment is a flamebait it is insulting. When you say that someone's comment is just an internet trope, it's insulting. You don't just enforce guidelines, you also make a very subjective judgement. I'm not going to argue anymore, I feel like talking to a politician that answers with bad faith and dodges the point.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    It's an idiom I use a lot, because 'be nice and polite all the time under any circumstances' is something I associate with kindergarten. Small children don't have flamewars, although I see how they're reminiscent of schoolyard fights. Still, I think posters need to accept some expressive/emotive language in discourse. 'Good luck with that' may be a trope as a way to sarcastically express skepticism, but it's hardly offensive or conversation-terminating.I like to know how people are feeling in regard to a contentious topic, whether or not I find them or their argument agreeable. draining away all emotion/idiom introduces its own problems; callous or cruel remarks may be couched in pseudo-objectivity and the language of necessity/inevitability.
- pastacacioepepe 3y ago
  > I think we can handle a robust exchange of views now and again, even if they're not expressed the way you would express them. The comment in question didn't add anything to the discussion, it was just a snarky remark. Hence no actual exchange of views could be derived from it, only insults between factions.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    I found it meaningful and efficiently communicated, even though I disagreed with the person's opinion.
foldr 3y ago
I think you've slightly missed the mark on this one. Lots of things are tropes (there are tropes in your comment too, such as 'borderline call'), and saying that Putin has basically lost the war (whether true or false) isn't anywhere close to being 'grandiose rhetoric'. I don't think anyone expects you to get things right 100% of the time. It seems to me that calling this one particular comment flamebait was just a mistake. While it's not a very interesting comment, it's at least free of the wild speculation that you can find in many of the unmoderated comments in this thread.
- dang 3y ago
  I guess my criterion for 'grandiose rhetoric' is the bigness of a claim divided by the amount of information provided to support it. When the numerator is big and the denominator is small, that's what I mean by grandiose. It's one of the most common qualities on the internet, and one of the least interesting. I can't agree that I missed the mark on that comment - what I said seems well within standard mod practice on HN. But it's fine that you disagree - there's always going to be disagreement on specific cases, since we all have different backgrounds and therefore different perceptions. It's the principles that matter.
  - foldr 3y ago
    You asked for constructive suggestions in your original comment. I'd suggest not using the word 'grandiose' in this way. If someone accused me of using 'grandiose rhetoric', then I certainly wouldn't think they just meant to say that I'd made a strong claim without supporting evidence. The denominator is necessarily small as we're talking about a breaking news story obscured by the fog of war. If this is the bar that comments still have to reach in this context, then I wonder if the story should just remain flagged.
    - dang 3y ago
      I appreciate the constructive suggestion! I'm not sure I'm ready to let go of that phrase though. Probably it includes more than I managed to capture in my attempted definition upthread.

mdp2021 3y ago

> What is shallow about the comment Positional without explicit or evident basis.