4 ms·

Flamewars != disagreements. Discouraging flamewars (namecalling, counterproductive arguing that devolves into ad hominem and unrelated attacks) doesn't mean it

Flamewars != disagreements. Discouraging flamewars (namecalling, counterproductive arguing that devolves into ad hominem and unrelated attacks) doesn't mean it kills stories that generate disagreement and discussion. I've had many a disagreement in HN threads, been convinced that my original stance was wrong, and (I believe) convinced others that their original stance was wrong (or incomplete, or to change something about it). I've also learned a lot from simply posting what my understanding of an issue is and letting those more familiar add to it. The fact that HN does not want to go the way of Usenet/Reddit/4chan/name a forum doesn't make it an echo chamber. I hope people disagree with me in this thread and prove my point.

mjg59 13y ago
Reasoned disagreement is obviously easier to deal with than emotional attacks, but topics that incite emotional responses are arguably the most important ones to keep visible - they expose the most contentious points of disagreement in a community. It's certainly true that these angry discussions contain little of value in themselves, but the fact that they exist is valuable. A better compromise would be to limit further comments once a discussion has become overly vitriolic, not to disappear the story that sparked the anger.
- danielweber 13y ago
  You can debate about emotional topics, but you need a really active group of moderators. HN's moderators, for good or for ill, seem completely invisible, except when someone is quietly struck by lightning and is hellbanned.
- the_watcher 13y ago
  That's not why Hacker News exists. It's to share and discuss things hackers find interesting. It got as popular and important as it is for a reason, and a piece of that reason are the rules that people now are complaining about. There are other places on the internet to vent your outrage.
  - mjg59 13y ago
    Hackers clearly find these topics interesting - they get upvoted and spark debate. The problem is that if they spark excessively acrimonious debate, the topic gets treated as if it wasn't interesting in the first place. The stated aim is to avoid flamewars, not to avoid making people aware of controversial topics.
- lmm 13y ago
  I don't find it valuable for these topics to be visible - that's why I flag them. The site is this way because this way works; it's not like there aren't dozens of other sites with different policies out there on the internet. And yet for some reason we prefer to come here.
Pxtl 13y ago
The end result is the same though, HN conceals any controversial subjects, even ones that are important to the vitality of our industry.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The topic is undoubtedly important, but is the discussion of the topic specifically on HN really vital to our industry? I question this because such discussions seem to be, in practice, the exact opposite of productive. They are not so much discussions as they are internet shouting matches. I doubt very few people walk away from those discussions with altered perspectives.
  - the_watcher 13y ago
    The point of Hacker News isn't "to discuss things that (insert whoever currently is complaining that the HN front page doesn't match what their list of most important links is) I think are important." It's to discuss what hackers find interesting. This is explicitly stated in the goal of the site. Hacker News isn't a democracy, there are other places on the internet to find that. ADDENDUM: To those who counter that Hacker News has become such an important place in the internet consciousness that it needs to now address these things, consider that a primary reason it has become as important as it is now is that the rule you now complain about have done what they were intended to do.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Well, if we are going to truly embrace that premise, then I see little room to be upset. Discussions being flagged off is the HN system acting undemocratically to shape the discussion to its tastes. The flamewar detection system isn't smacking down topics, it smacks down types of discussions. Certain topics seem to generate little but flamewar and get regularly smacked down, indicating to me that HN has little interest in (or perhaps more accurately, ability to) discuss[ing] those topics reasonably. tl;dr: I agree, HN isn't for discussing everything. Far from not being okay with that, I think it is a good thing.
kmfrk 13y ago
"Flamewar" is such a Paul Graham term that doesn't really help with dealing with the problem. I'd rather use the reddit terminology of "controversial discussions" where people are coming from very different places. I think the problems with Hacker News has more to do with a failure to account for those situations over the echo chamber discussions where everyone is in (borderline-insufferable) agreement.
- nailer 13y ago
  > "Flamewar" is such a Paul Graham term We were discussing flame wars on Slashdot before News.YC (ahem, Hacker News) even existed. People on the internet before then were discussing flame wars on usenet (as the parent post mentions).
  - VLM 13y ago
    We had perfectly good flamewars on BBSes in the 80s, and it only got worse once fidonet sprung up. And before that on ham radio bands like 80M and to a lesser extent 20M we had plenty of people arguing over basically nothing since... I donno 1920s or so?
- beat 13y ago
  I'm fairly certain that Paul Graham doesn't hold the copyright on the word "flamewar". There's no "Paul Graham term" about it. We all understand what a flamewar is, plus or minus a handful of picked nits. The HN flamewar detector isn't a human being. It's a software algorithm. It doesn't care about the subject of the flamewar or take that into account. It only looks for certain posting patterns. What you're asking for is something that discriminates (no negativity intended) "controversial discussions" from "flamewars" - where "controversial discussion" is pretty much defined as "stuff I want to talk about".
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jlgreco 13y ago
  A "controversial discussion" is what happens here when we start discussing, say, the merits of different memory management schemes. People entering a conversation in disagreement, presenting opposing views, considering other views carefully, and then writing civil and constructive rebuttals to those opposing views that further the discussion. Not a religious war, a technical discussion that involves disagreement. That is not the sort of conversation that that Paul Graham considers a flamewar.
forgottenpass 13y ago
Discouraging flamewars is one thing, but Hacker News does it by leaning hard into different practices that are also bad for discussion. The fake air of noticeably forced civility on top of a disagreement is annoying to stomach at best, and can cause decent into passive aggression. By treating some regular ol' nonsense as erudite points at the same level as the people who actually know what they're talking about, an uninformed passerby will walk away with the wrong impression about the ideas presented. Disagreements aren't settled on the facts if someone is willing to talk longer and strain their original points further than the person they're talking with can tolerate. I've noticed that the most-informed in a Hacker News thread is not necessarily well-informed, unless I'm ready and willing to write walls of text (which I never am) there is often no point in attempting to join the conversation. The closest I'll even try anymore is making a small point at the fringe.

mjg59 13y ago

Reasoned disagreement is obviously easier to deal with than emotional attacks, but topics that incite emotional responses are arguably the most important ones to keep visible - they expose the most contentious points of disagreement in a community. It's certainly true that these angry discussions contain little of value in themselves, but the fact that they exist is valuable. A better compromise would be to limit further comments once a discussion has become overly vitriolic, not to disappear the story that sparked the anger.

danielweber 13y ago
You can debate about emotional topics, but you need a really active group of moderators. HN's moderators, for good or for ill, seem completely invisible, except when someone is quietly struck by lightning and is hellbanned.
the_watcher 13y ago
That's not why Hacker News exists. It's to share and discuss things hackers find interesting. It got as popular and important as it is for a reason, and a piece of that reason are the rules that people now are complaining about. There are other places on the internet to vent your outrage.
- mjg59 13y ago
  Hackers clearly find these topics interesting - they get upvoted and spark debate. The problem is that if they spark excessively acrimonious debate, the topic gets treated as if it wasn't interesting in the first place. The stated aim is to avoid flamewars, not to avoid making people aware of controversial topics.
lmm 13y ago
I don't find it valuable for these topics to be visible - that's why I flag them. The site is this way because this way works; it's not like there aren't dozens of other sites with different policies out there on the internet. And yet for some reason we prefer to come here.

Pxtl 13y ago

The end result is the same though, HN conceals any controversial subjects, even ones that are important to the vitality of our industry.

jlgreco 13y ago
The topic is undoubtedly important, but is the discussion of the topic specifically on HN really vital to our industry? I question this because such discussions seem to be, in practice, the exact opposite of productive. They are not so much discussions as they are internet shouting matches. I doubt very few people walk away from those discussions with altered perspectives.
- the_watcher 13y ago
  The point of Hacker News isn't "to discuss things that (insert whoever currently is complaining that the HN front page doesn't match what their list of most important links is) I think are important." It's to discuss what hackers find interesting. This is explicitly stated in the goal of the site. Hacker News isn't a democracy, there are other places on the internet to find that. ADDENDUM: To those who counter that Hacker News has become such an important place in the internet consciousness that it needs to now address these things, consider that a primary reason it has become as important as it is now is that the rule you now complain about have done what they were intended to do.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Well, if we are going to truly embrace that premise, then I see little room to be upset. Discussions being flagged off is the HN system acting undemocratically to shape the discussion to its tastes. The flamewar detection system isn't smacking down topics, it smacks down types of discussions. Certain topics seem to generate little but flamewar and get regularly smacked down, indicating to me that HN has little interest in (or perhaps more accurately, ability to) discuss[ing] those topics reasonably. tl;dr: I agree, HN isn't for discussing everything. Far from not being okay with that, I think it is a good thing.

kmfrk 13y ago

"Flamewar" is such a Paul Graham term that doesn't really help with dealing with the problem. I'd rather use the reddit terminology of "controversial discussions" where people are coming from very different places. I think the problems with Hacker News has more to do with a failure to account for those situations over the echo chamber discussions where everyone is in (borderline-insufferable) agreement.

nailer 13y ago
> "Flamewar" is such a Paul Graham term We were discussing flame wars on Slashdot before News.YC (ahem, Hacker News) even existed. People on the internet before then were discussing flame wars on usenet (as the parent post mentions).
- VLM 13y ago
  We had perfectly good flamewars on BBSes in the 80s, and it only got worse once fidonet sprung up. And before that on ham radio bands like 80M and to a lesser extent 20M we had plenty of people arguing over basically nothing since... I donno 1920s or so?
beat 13y ago
I'm fairly certain that Paul Graham doesn't hold the copyright on the word "flamewar". There's no "Paul Graham term" about it. We all understand what a flamewar is, plus or minus a handful of picked nits. The HN flamewar detector isn't a human being. It's a software algorithm. It doesn't care about the subject of the flamewar or take that into account. It only looks for certain posting patterns. What you're asking for is something that discriminates (no negativity intended) "controversial discussions" from "flamewars" - where "controversial discussion" is pretty much defined as "stuff I want to talk about".
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jlgreco 13y ago
A "controversial discussion" is what happens here when we start discussing, say, the merits of different memory management schemes. People entering a conversation in disagreement, presenting opposing views, considering other views carefully, and then writing civil and constructive rebuttals to those opposing views that further the discussion. Not a religious war, a technical discussion that involves disagreement. That is not the sort of conversation that that Paul Graham considers a flamewar.

forgottenpass 13y ago

Discouraging flamewars is one thing, but Hacker News does it by leaning hard into different practices that are also bad for discussion. The fake air of noticeably forced civility on top of a disagreement is annoying to stomach at best, and can cause decent into passive aggression. By treating some regular ol' nonsense as erudite points at the same level as the people who actually know what they're talking about, an uninformed passerby will walk away with the wrong impression about the ideas presented. Disagreements aren't settled on the facts if someone is willing to talk longer and strain their original points further than the person they're talking with can tolerate. I've noticed that the most-informed in a Hacker News thread is not necessarily well-informed, unless I'm ready and willing to write walls of text (which I never am) there is often no point in attempting to join the conversation. The closest I'll even try anymore is making a small point at the fringe.