4 ms·

The flaw in your argument here is that in both of your examples there is nothing that the people could do to change their status via behavior. I think the hope

by TrevorJ 18y ago

The flaw in your argument here is that in both of your examples there is nothing that the people could do to change their status via behavior. I think the hope here is that posters who have proven themselves to be valuable to the community will have a tiny bit more perceived authority and thus help preserve the tone of discourse we have all come to enjoy. If anyone feels the desire to see there user name in orange, it seems fairly easy to accomplish that goal whereas in your examples there is no such opportunity. I think the majority of regulars here aren't going to care too much one way or the other about the color of their name and will continue to post as they always have, and newcomers will have a goal to reach for that will encourage behavior that is in line with what we have had up to this point.

mechanical_fish 18y ago
I still agree with this, as I was initially inclined to agree with it. It's a few upvotes, people! Surely nobody takes it that seriously! And yet the sight of someone, out of the blue, acting out some elaborate deference to an orange-named person was quite jarring. Yeah, it was a joke, but the disarming smile is always part of these things, even when it's serious. Which I don't think it is, here, and at any rate it's too early to tell. But I remain... uncomfortable. It's much like the disturbing feeling I get whenever someone suggests that the solution to the site's woes (whatever they are this week) is to give those of us with really high karma an array of superpowers that we can use to smite evil wherever it occurs. (Fortunately, that really has been treated as a joke, so far. The awesome powers granted to high-karma people -- you can change the color of your own menu bar -- are cute and completely appropriate.) It's not a big deal, but if I had the power to turn off my orange name I probably would.
- TrevorJ 18y ago
  I think maybe that deference you noted is one of the intended consequences though. What I have heard overwhelmingly lately is A: HN as it stands now is a great community and B: People wish to preserve the current tone but are worried about the influx of new people who may not 'get' what HN is about. I see the new 'orange' feature as a way to give a tiny bit more authority to users in good standing with the community, and as such it increases their ability to help maintain the tone as new users join.
  - diN0bot 18y ago
    the influx of new people and the change (loss?) of culture are at such odds with me desire for inclusiveness and internal (personal) regulation, or free will.
    - TrevorJ 18y ago
      The point I would ask you to consider then is that a focused topic, even if it is as broad as "Hacker News" will necessarily exclude certain other topics and as a corollary it will exclude or discourage certain types of behaviors. Because I do have a free will, if I have the desire to behave in a certain way, and it's at odds with the goal of HN, I can choose to use any number of other outlets for my communication, or even create my own avenues. The counter intuitive truth is that if all of the social news sites where 100% inclusive in terms of content and were 100% homogenized (that is to say, the culture's of those sites fully exhibited all forms of communication/topics) then that would actually inhibit free will because nobody would have any choices in terms of what type of content they wanted to interact with: everyone would be subject to the same exact atmosphere with no viable alternative.
      - diN0bot 18y ago
        i meant inclusive within the bounds of hn's goals. there are still sub communities; eg: dev hackers, startup idea folks. no one is necessarily wrong in their interpretation of hn's community and submission policy. sometimes it is not that the level of comments has gone down but that the amount of comments has gone up. this is bad for the morale of commenter, to say nothing of the time readers waste (since without collapsible threads...). maybe after 20 comments no one should be able to comment. i'm not advocating homogeneity so much as customized views. as the community grows it becomes harder to be a part of it. there's a social quality i'm trying to explain...and a concern for how exclusion is implemented... but i've spent far too much time on hn today as it is, so i'll let it rest.
        TrevorJ 18y ago
        Ah, yes I do see the distinction you are making after clarifying.

by TrevorJ 18y ago

mechanical_fish 18y ago

I still agree with this, as I was initially inclined to agree with it. It's a few upvotes, people! Surely nobody takes it that seriously! And yet the sight of someone, out of the blue, acting out some elaborate deference to an orange-named person was quite jarring. Yeah, it was a joke, but the disarming smile is always part of these things, even when it's serious. Which I don't think it is, here, and at any rate it's too early to tell. But I remain... uncomfortable. It's much like the disturbing feeling I get whenever someone suggests that the solution to the site's woes (whatever they are this week) is to give those of us with really high karma an array of superpowers that we can use to smite evil wherever it occurs. (Fortunately, that really has been treated as a joke, so far. The awesome powers granted to high-karma people -- you can change the color of your own menu bar -- are cute and completely appropriate.) It's not a big deal, but if I had the power to turn off my orange name I probably would.

TrevorJ 18y ago
I think maybe that deference you noted is one of the intended consequences though. What I have heard overwhelmingly lately is A: HN as it stands now is a great community and B: People wish to preserve the current tone but are worried about the influx of new people who may not 'get' what HN is about. I see the new 'orange' feature as a way to give a tiny bit more authority to users in good standing with the community, and as such it increases their ability to help maintain the tone as new users join.
- diN0bot 18y ago
  the influx of new people and the change (loss?) of culture are at such odds with me desire for inclusiveness and internal (personal) regulation, or free will.
  - TrevorJ 18y ago
    The point I would ask you to consider then is that a focused topic, even if it is as broad as "Hacker News" will necessarily exclude certain other topics and as a corollary it will exclude or discourage certain types of behaviors. Because I do have a free will, if I have the desire to behave in a certain way, and it's at odds with the goal of HN, I can choose to use any number of other outlets for my communication, or even create my own avenues. The counter intuitive truth is that if all of the social news sites where 100% inclusive in terms of content and were 100% homogenized (that is to say, the culture's of those sites fully exhibited all forms of communication/topics) then that would actually inhibit free will because nobody would have any choices in terms of what type of content they wanted to interact with: everyone would be subject to the same exact atmosphere with no viable alternative.
    - diN0bot 18y ago
      i meant inclusive within the bounds of hn's goals. there are still sub communities; eg: dev hackers, startup idea folks. no one is necessarily wrong in their interpretation of hn's community and submission policy. sometimes it is not that the level of comments has gone down but that the amount of comments has gone up. this is bad for the morale of commenter, to say nothing of the time readers waste (since without collapsible threads...). maybe after 20 comments no one should be able to comment. i'm not advocating homogeneity so much as customized views. as the community grows it becomes harder to be a part of it. there's a social quality i'm trying to explain...and a concern for how exclusion is implemented... but i've spent far too much time on hn today as it is, so i'll let it rest.
      - TrevorJ 18y ago
        Ah, yes I do see the distinction you are making after clarifying.