5 ms·

Intent makes a comment flamebait. If it was obviously against the guidelines, like complaining that a submission is inappropriate, I wouldn't have posted it. An

by dfxm12 3y ago

Intent makes a comment flamebait. If it was obviously against the guidelines, like complaining that a submission is inappropriate, I wouldn't have posted it. Anyway, I'm interested to learn. What statistical analysis did you run to conclude what the expected response to my post would be?

dang 3y ago
I'm just speaking from long experience. The word "statistically" above just means "if you look at enough cases". What makes a comment flamebait is the effect it has on the thread (that's the "bait" part). Intent doesn't determine this. If it did, it wouldn't be possible to post flamebait accidentally—which is actually how most flamebait comes about.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  I've got a lot of experience on message boards too. I've never heard of accidental flamebait as a concept. Baiting a line (of fishing wire or text) is a deliberate act. Anyway, What makes it flamebait is ... not the actual responses What makes a comment flamebait is the effect it has on the thread Aren't the actual responses to a comment the effect it has on a thread (as opposed to what you think the responses might be)?
  - dang 3y ago
    Many, in fact most, trollish comments are posted by people who had no intention of being trollish and had no idea that their comments might land in trollish ways. The resulting flamewars are the same as if they had intended it. Does that help?
    - dfxm12 3y ago
      No, because just like you've moved the conversation away from trying to justify how my post breaks the hn guidelines, you're moving it again away from your indefensible stance on the definition of flamebait. Flame wars gets started by accident sometimes, yes. There are a myriad reasons for this. It has nothing to do with the definition of flamebait.
      - dang 3y ago
        Of course it's possible that we have different definitions of flamebait. What I mean by it is when a post includes something inflammatory which is likely to generate an indignant response in either the person you're replying to or readers at large.
        dfxm12 3y ago
        It's different when a moderator uses personal definitions for words as justification for taking action. The guidelines might as well say "posts are subject to our whims" at that point.
        dang 3y ago
        We need some sort of definitions in order to moderate at all. I wouldn't call them personal, and since the definitions are principled, I wouldn't call them whims either. Obviously there's some interpretation involved, so different people would apply the same definition differently, but I don't think "not sure if you're being honest or poisoning the well" is such a borderline call.
        dfxm12 3y ago
        My comment wasn't borderline. It was fine. If you look up this chain, every possible reason you brought up was addressed, defeated and subsequently abandoned. All that's left is that it was your whim. I can't really argue against that.

by dfxm12 3y ago

dang 3y ago

I'm just speaking from long experience. The word "statistically" above just means "if you look at enough cases". What makes a comment flamebait is the effect it has on the thread (that's the "bait" part). Intent doesn't determine this. If it did, it wouldn't be possible to post flamebait accidentally—which is actually how most flamebait comes about.

dfxm12 3y ago
I've got a lot of experience on message boards too. I've never heard of accidental flamebait as a concept. Baiting a line (of fishing wire or text) is a deliberate act. Anyway, What makes it flamebait is ... not the actual responses What makes a comment flamebait is the effect it has on the thread Aren't the actual responses to a comment the effect it has on a thread (as opposed to what you think the responses might be)?
- dang 3y ago
  Many, in fact most, trollish comments are posted by people who had no intention of being trollish and had no idea that their comments might land in trollish ways. The resulting flamewars are the same as if they had intended it. Does that help?
  - dfxm12 3y ago
    No, because just like you've moved the conversation away from trying to justify how my post breaks the hn guidelines, you're moving it again away from your indefensible stance on the definition of flamebait. Flame wars gets started by accident sometimes, yes. There are a myriad reasons for this. It has nothing to do with the definition of flamebait.
    - dang 3y ago
      Of course it's possible that we have different definitions of flamebait. What I mean by it is when a post includes something inflammatory which is likely to generate an indignant response in either the person you're replying to or readers at large.
      - dfxm12 3y ago
        It's different when a moderator uses personal definitions for words as justification for taking action. The guidelines might as well say "posts are subject to our whims" at that point.
        dang 3y ago
        We need some sort of definitions in order to moderate at all. I wouldn't call them personal, and since the definitions are principled, I wouldn't call them whims either. Obviously there's some interpretation involved, so different people would apply the same definition differently, but I don't think "not sure if you're being honest or poisoning the well" is such a borderline call.
        dfxm12 3y ago
        My comment wasn't borderline. It was fine. If you look up this chain, every possible reason you brought up was addressed, defeated and subsequently abandoned. All that's left is that it was your whim. I can't really argue against that.