4 ms·

He is complaining about wanting to ask off-topic questions, which is exactly what you denied was in the article.

by cruise02 14y ago

wpietri 14y ago
No, he has a different view of what on topic means than the people who currently hold the power.
- cruise02 14y ago
  No, I think you're being willfully ignorant. He explicitly says "broaden allowed topics for discussion." He understands what's on topic and what isn't. He wants a place to have discussions that are off topic for Stack Overflow, but doesn't want to go to one of the many sites that already exist for that purpose. I don't think asking users to take off topic discussions to one of those other places is asking too much.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    You're demonstrating the problem. There is a disagreement about which topics should be allowed. Broaden means increase the number of topics considered to be on topic. He understands your definition of "on topic"; he just thinks it makes for a poor user experience. And I agree with him. The problem here is that you and others confuse your view of "off topic for Stack Overflow" with some sort of universal truth. You get away with that not because you're right in some academic sense but because you have the power to drive off people with differing views.
    - cruise02 14y ago
      I'm not the one who's confused. Moderators don't set the policy for what's on topic at Stack Exchange sites, the communities who use those sites do. The place to argue what is and isn't on topic isn't on that guy's blog, and it isn't here.
      - wpietri 14y ago
        I believe the guy can say what he wants on his blog, and it's arrogant of you to think otherwise. And your notion that Hacker News users can't discuss what they want on their own site is crazed. My point, and I think his, is that the ever-narrowing topic definitions may be what the participating community wants, but it is driving off people with different ideas. If you're happy with that, fine. But insisting that outsiders aren't allowed to comment on it is just another symptom of the drive for orthodoxy that I think is ruining it in the first place.
        cruise02 14y ago
        I never said the guy couldn't or shouldn't post on his blog about it, nor did I say it can't be discussed here on HN. If you want something to actually be done about what you perceive as a problem though, you need to join in the community discussion at the site set aside for that purpose. Decisions about SE policies are made by the communities on SE sites, not on HN.
        martmarc 14y ago
        I fully disagree when you say that if you want things to change you have to go to discuss this on SE. The entire point is that SE is not just "SE policies" and "SE moderators": SE is first and foremost users and these users have their right to read criticism about SE on HN / reddit / blogs / etc. And the day a topic shall pop-up on meta saying that some introspection from SE may be needed, the more users have read well-articulated blogs entries and great comments explaining what they find very wrong on SE, the more likely they are to upvote these suggestions on meta. You're not an island and you to realize your most important users have a very vocal voice outside of SE and that this voice does have an influence.
        cruise02 14y ago
        This isn't my opinion, so I don't know what you're disagreeing with. Would you expect HN to change because of comments you read on Stack Overflow? Of course not. Everyone is perfectly welcome to discuss things where and whenever they want, but ultimately the ideas need to be discussed by the community of people who actually use SE sites. So yeah, I fully agree that you can go ahead and discuss things as much as you want here on HN and on blogs. I join in that sort of thing all the time. But if you want things to actually change, those ideas need to be posted and discussed among the community of SE users.
    - willvarfar 14y ago
      (its a bit late, but as blog author, I can confirm your interpretation of what I meant)

He is complaining about wanting to ask off-topic questions, which is exactly what you denied was in the article.

wpietri 14y ago

No, he has a different view of what on topic means than the people who currently hold the power.

cruise02 14y ago
No, I think you're being willfully ignorant. He explicitly says "broaden allowed topics for discussion." He understands what's on topic and what isn't. He wants a place to have discussions that are off topic for Stack Overflow, but doesn't want to go to one of the many sites that already exist for that purpose. I don't think asking users to take off topic discussions to one of those other places is asking too much.
- wpietri 14y ago
  You're demonstrating the problem. There is a disagreement about which topics should be allowed. Broaden means increase the number of topics considered to be on topic. He understands your definition of "on topic"; he just thinks it makes for a poor user experience. And I agree with him. The problem here is that you and others confuse your view of "off topic for Stack Overflow" with some sort of universal truth. You get away with that not because you're right in some academic sense but because you have the power to drive off people with differing views.
  - cruise02 14y ago
    I'm not the one who's confused. Moderators don't set the policy for what's on topic at Stack Exchange sites, the communities who use those sites do. The place to argue what is and isn't on topic isn't on that guy's blog, and it isn't here.
    - wpietri 14y ago
      I believe the guy can say what he wants on his blog, and it's arrogant of you to think otherwise. And your notion that Hacker News users can't discuss what they want on their own site is crazed. My point, and I think his, is that the ever-narrowing topic definitions may be what the participating community wants, but it is driving off people with different ideas. If you're happy with that, fine. But insisting that outsiders aren't allowed to comment on it is just another symptom of the drive for orthodoxy that I think is ruining it in the first place.
      - cruise02 14y ago
        I never said the guy couldn't or shouldn't post on his blog about it, nor did I say it can't be discussed here on HN. If you want something to actually be done about what you perceive as a problem though, you need to join in the community discussion at the site set aside for that purpose. Decisions about SE policies are made by the communities on SE sites, not on HN.
        martmarc 14y ago
        I fully disagree when you say that if you want things to change you have to go to discuss this on SE. The entire point is that SE is not just "SE policies" and "SE moderators": SE is first and foremost users and these users have their right to read criticism about SE on HN / reddit / blogs / etc. And the day a topic shall pop-up on meta saying that some introspection from SE may be needed, the more users have read well-articulated blogs entries and great comments explaining what they find very wrong on SE, the more likely they are to upvote these suggestions on meta. You're not an island and you to realize your most important users have a very vocal voice outside of SE and that this voice does have an influence.
        cruise02 14y ago
        This isn't my opinion, so I don't know what you're disagreeing with. Would you expect HN to change because of comments you read on Stack Overflow? Of course not. Everyone is perfectly welcome to discuss things where and whenever they want, but ultimately the ideas need to be discussed by the community of people who actually use SE sites. So yeah, I fully agree that you can go ahead and discuss things as much as you want here on HN and on blogs. I join in that sort of thing all the time. But if you want things to actually change, those ideas need to be posted and discussed among the community of SE users.
  - willvarfar 14y ago
    (its a bit late, but as blog author, I can confirm your interpretation of what I meant)