3 ms·

You can write this comment without the weird HN meta the guidelines ask you to skip and it would be a much better comment.

by pvg 3y ago

hnlmorg 3y ago
My comment is about what I believe to be a double standard in what was a popular comment in this thread. It's not a meta argument because it's directly responding to the comments being made that are Beeper are in the wrong / Apple are in the right and it would be hard for me to make that point without, well, referencing those comments :) In my view it has been a very one sided discussion and I wanted to shine a light on that fact. It definitely isn't a sneer at the wider community (I mean why would I? as a prolific commenter myself, I'd be tarring myself with that same brush!) So I do not believe I'm breaking any of the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). I do want to shine a light on one of the guidelines though: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." I appreciate your comment is well intentioned but it's not taking my post in good faith.
- pvg 3y ago
  It might be about that but that kind of about is off topic on HN as you can see in the guidelines and numerous moderator comments. It strictly turns reasonable comments into bad comments which end up getting moderated. If you want to respond to a comment, respond to the comment. If you want to write about some broad sentiment, just write about it without attributing it to the forum or thread as a whole, it avoids all the tangential umbrage and counterumbrage.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    > It might be about that but that kind of about is off topic on HN as you can see in the guidelines and numerous moderator comments. I don't see any moderator comments. Though isn't Daniel (dang) the only mod left since Scott departed? > If you want to write about some broad sentiment, just write about it without attributing it to the forum or thread as a whole, it avoids all the tangential umbrage and counterumbrage. I do appreciate your point of view, I honestly do. But it feels the only issue you take from my comment was that it had two letters in it: "HN". I could write my comment in a way that infers the subjects without saying "HN" but it wouldn't change anything about the tone nor content of the post. So I don't agree with your interpretation of the guidelines on this occasion because Hacker News isn't like Voldemort -- it's ok to say "HN" in a comment on HN. You just can't be derogatory about the HN community, which I wasn't. And the high quality of the discourse that followed should demonstrate that. Anyway I don't wish this to become a tangent. Perhaps it's better to agree to disagree. Your point is valuable generally speaking though. That much I do completely agree with you on.
    - pvg 3y ago
      You can search by:dang sneer and by:dang meta to find lots of relevant comments. As to 'it's just the letters HN', I don't see how that's a reasonable interpretation of anything I wrote. The comments in here are weird. HN is normally an advocate for open protocols (like Mastodon, XMPP) and has been highly critical of services closing their integrations with 3rd party clients (like Reddit and Twitter). Yet the moment it’s an Apple protocol, suddenly none of the above matters. This is meta, it's sneery, it's an inaccurate thing to write about any threads since threads change quickly and it's not particularly meaningful since the forum is big enough to contain multitudes of conflicting viewpoints at different times. It's the stuff that gets comments deranked. If you have trouble finding exact moderation comments to that effect, you can email the mods and ask.
      - hnlmorg 3y ago
        With the greatest of respect to yourself, and I know your comments here are well intentioned, but I think you’re the bigger rule breaker in this discussion. You’re off topic and you’re not reading comments charitably (I was not being sneery, as I’ve said repeatedly already). If you have an issue with my comment then downvote it or flag it. That’s what you’re supposed to do as per the guidelines. Again, I know your comments are well intentioned but I absolutely do not agree with your interpretation here. I think you’re twisting my comments unfavourably and creating meta arguments from them rather than using the peer review systems in place. Which is ironic because you’re breaking those very guidelines you’re trying to uphold. So let’s just agree to disagree please. Because you are no more of an authority to dictate who’s right or wrong here than I am and arguing with me about those guidelines is absolutely not what you’re supposed to do as part of those guidelines.

You can write this comment without the weird HN meta the guidelines ask you to skip and it would be a much better comment.

by pvg 3y ago

You can write this comment without the weird HN meta the guidelines ask you to skip and it would be a much better comment.

hnlmorg 3y ago

My comment is about what I believe to be a double standard in what was a popular comment in this thread. It's not a meta argument because it's directly responding to the comments being made that are Beeper are in the wrong / Apple are in the right and it would be hard for me to make that point without, well, referencing those comments :) In my view it has been a very one sided discussion and I wanted to shine a light on that fact. It definitely isn't a sneer at the wider community (I mean why would I? as a prolific commenter myself, I'd be tarring myself with that same brush!) So I do not believe I'm breaking any of the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). I do want to shine a light on one of the guidelines though: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." I appreciate your comment is well intentioned but it's not taking my post in good faith.

pvg 3y ago
It might be about that but that kind of about is off topic on HN as you can see in the guidelines and numerous moderator comments. It strictly turns reasonable comments into bad comments which end up getting moderated. If you want to respond to a comment, respond to the comment. If you want to write about some broad sentiment, just write about it without attributing it to the forum or thread as a whole, it avoids all the tangential umbrage and counterumbrage.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  > It might be about that but that kind of about is off topic on HN as you can see in the guidelines and numerous moderator comments. I don't see any moderator comments. Though isn't Daniel (dang) the only mod left since Scott departed? > If you want to write about some broad sentiment, just write about it without attributing it to the forum or thread as a whole, it avoids all the tangential umbrage and counterumbrage. I do appreciate your point of view, I honestly do. But it feels the only issue you take from my comment was that it had two letters in it: "HN". I could write my comment in a way that infers the subjects without saying "HN" but it wouldn't change anything about the tone nor content of the post. So I don't agree with your interpretation of the guidelines on this occasion because Hacker News isn't like Voldemort -- it's ok to say "HN" in a comment on HN. You just can't be derogatory about the HN community, which I wasn't. And the high quality of the discourse that followed should demonstrate that. Anyway I don't wish this to become a tangent. Perhaps it's better to agree to disagree. Your point is valuable generally speaking though. That much I do completely agree with you on.
  - pvg 3y ago
    You can search by:dang sneer and by:dang meta to find lots of relevant comments. As to 'it's just the letters HN', I don't see how that's a reasonable interpretation of anything I wrote. The comments in here are weird. HN is normally an advocate for open protocols (like Mastodon, XMPP) and has been highly critical of services closing their integrations with 3rd party clients (like Reddit and Twitter). Yet the moment it’s an Apple protocol, suddenly none of the above matters. This is meta, it's sneery, it's an inaccurate thing to write about any threads since threads change quickly and it's not particularly meaningful since the forum is big enough to contain multitudes of conflicting viewpoints at different times. It's the stuff that gets comments deranked. If you have trouble finding exact moderation comments to that effect, you can email the mods and ask.
    - hnlmorg 3y ago
      With the greatest of respect to yourself, and I know your comments here are well intentioned, but I think you’re the bigger rule breaker in this discussion. You’re off topic and you’re not reading comments charitably (I was not being sneery, as I’ve said repeatedly already). If you have an issue with my comment then downvote it or flag it. That’s what you’re supposed to do as per the guidelines. Again, I know your comments are well intentioned but I absolutely do not agree with your interpretation here. I think you’re twisting my comments unfavourably and creating meta arguments from them rather than using the peer review systems in place. Which is ironic because you’re breaking those very guidelines you’re trying to uphold. So let’s just agree to disagree please. Because you are no more of an authority to dictate who’s right or wrong here than I am and arguing with me about those guidelines is absolutely not what you’re supposed to do as part of those guidelines.