4 ms·

So the article might be useful to people building businesses in the tech space, but because some users decided to air their petty grievances in the _comments_ t

So the article might be useful to people building businesses in the tech space, but because some users decided to air their petty grievances in the _comments_ to that story, the story itself got buried? Seems like the flamewar detector would be better aimed at closing comments rather than burying stories.

rmrfrmrf 13y ago
I like the flamewar detector removing the whole story. As PG has said in the past, flamewars aren't interesting and they do nothing but divide the community. Keeping the story on just causes more drama because the users with comments deleted end up replying asking where their comments went and then start crying about anti-Americanism and the right to comment on a private website ad infinitum. It's pointless.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  On the other hand, if you are large-ish and organized, it provides an easy avenue to take down stories you don't like without the paper-trail of flagging...
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Considering these flamewars typically involve at least one person who admits to being a Microsoft employee, I don't think that "false-flags flamewars" is something that we are seeing in practice.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      Actually, the flamewar involved no one claiming to be an MS employee. I only commented after the submission was killed. But feel free to believe anything that reinforces your existing beliefs.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Well you are certainly participating in this one.....
- lessnonymous 13y ago
  Sorry .. I did not intend to imply the flamewar detector was going to delete anyone's comment. It was going to do one of two things: 1. Turn off comments 2. Turn off comments and hide all comments to date. You can't have it electing to remove one comment or another. At most it could delete a top level comment that was the spawn of the flamewar. But still, I say hide all comments and turn off further comments. That way we still get the benefit of the story.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > 1. Turn off comments A few days ago, on the topic of turning off comments when there is a flamewar, instead of knocking the entire post down/off the front page, I said this: "[killing the discussion entirely] is a good thing, if something is on the front page then comments should be enabled, if only in case something in the article desperately needs to be corrected. If we get a post on here about a new study suggesting that vaccines may cause autism, that would almost certainly generate a flamewar but the absolute last thing we would want is for the post to remain on the front page and not permit anyone to post comments that may refute claims made by the study. In situations like those, it is better to kill the discussion and to take the post off the frontpage than to leave it there but disable commenting."
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  But this is a very weak approach, as it makes it extremely easy for bad actors to 'poison the well.' If there's something you don't like, use a sockpuppet account or two to get a flamewar going, thread gets nuked from orbit, and the people who wanted to discuss it in good faith are marginalized.

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

I like the flamewar detector removing the whole story. As PG has said in the past, flamewars aren't interesting and they do nothing but divide the community. Keeping the story on just causes more drama because the users with comments deleted end up replying asking where their comments went and then start crying about anti-Americanism and the right to comment on a private website ad infinitum. It's pointless.

sliverstorm 13y ago
On the other hand, if you are large-ish and organized, it provides an easy avenue to take down stories you don't like without the paper-trail of flagging...
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Considering these flamewars typically involve at least one person who admits to being a Microsoft employee, I don't think that "false-flags flamewars" is something that we are seeing in practice.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    Actually, the flamewar involved no one claiming to be an MS employee. I only commented after the submission was killed. But feel free to believe anything that reinforces your existing beliefs.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Well you are certainly participating in this one.....
lessnonymous 13y ago
Sorry .. I did not intend to imply the flamewar detector was going to delete anyone's comment. It was going to do one of two things: 1. Turn off comments 2. Turn off comments and hide all comments to date. You can't have it electing to remove one comment or another. At most it could delete a top level comment that was the spawn of the flamewar. But still, I say hide all comments and turn off further comments. That way we still get the benefit of the story.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > 1. Turn off comments A few days ago, on the topic of turning off comments when there is a flamewar, instead of knocking the entire post down/off the front page, I said this: "[killing the discussion entirely] is a good thing, if something is on the front page then comments should be enabled, if only in case something in the article desperately needs to be corrected. If we get a post on here about a new study suggesting that vaccines may cause autism, that would almost certainly generate a flamewar but the absolute last thing we would want is for the post to remain on the front page and not permit anyone to post comments that may refute claims made by the study. In situations like those, it is better to kill the discussion and to take the post off the frontpage than to leave it there but disable commenting."
anigbrowl 13y ago
But this is a very weak approach, as it makes it extremely easy for bad actors to 'poison the well.' If there's something you don't like, use a sockpuppet account or two to get a flamewar going, thread gets nuked from orbit, and the people who wanted to discuss it in good faith are marginalized.