4 ms·

"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 discussio

by 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.
- kmfrk 13y ago
  Honest question, how often do people go on to downvote comments and flag threads when discussing memory management schemes?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Flag? Probably not often, and that is because controversy is not a bad thing; those discussions don't need to be flagged. That is the point I am making here, HN handles controversy very well, except certain types of topics generate flamewar, not mere controversy. Those get smacked down. Downvoted? Probably more often than you would guess; many people downvote for disagreement just as they upvote for agreement. As an example: Go (language) is a popular but quite controversial topic here. It is pretty easy to get downvoted in discussions on the merits of the language, but those discussions don't get flagged off the site and flamewars are rare (if present at all).

by kmfrk 13y ago

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.

kmfrk 13y ago
Honest question, how often do people go on to downvote comments and flag threads when discussing memory management schemes?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Flag? Probably not often, and that is because controversy is not a bad thing; those discussions don't need to be flagged. That is the point I am making here, HN handles controversy very well, except certain types of topics generate flamewar, not mere controversy. Those get smacked down. Downvoted? Probably more often than you would guess; many people downvote for disagreement just as they upvote for agreement. As an example: Go (language) is a popular but quite controversial topic here. It is pretty easy to get downvoted in discussions on the merits of the language, but those discussions don't get flagged off the site and flamewars are rare (if present at all).