3 ms·

As I understand the idea, endorsing a comment doesn't mean you agree with it. It just means you think it deserves to be in the thread. That should leave room fo

by gruseom 13y ago

As I understand the idea, endorsing a comment doesn't mean you agree with it. It just means you think it deserves to be in the thread. That should leave room for unpopular views as long as they're respectfully expressed.

jsmthrowaway 13y ago
> As I understand the idea, endorsing a comment doesn't mean you agree with it. Yeah, that's exactly how it will be used. Sarcasm aside, the word "endorse" has a very specific definition which basically guarantees how this system will be used, intentions or not. I think about every single grayed-out comment I've seen, downvoted simply because it shared an opinion that made people feel uncomfortable but was nonetheless on-point, and now realize that we'll never even see those comments. Real bummer for those inheriting HN to get it after this bad decision has been made. Will probably represent the end of useful dissent on HN.
- tptacek 13y ago
  It will work better than you think it will. People will endorse comments they disagree with just to get the opportunity to rebut them. Users don't debate things on HN to right the wrongs of the universe; they debate because debating is (or can be, when the comments aren't horrible) gratifying.
  - rantanplan 13y ago
    No it won't actually. What you described might be the 1/1000 of the cases. Most of the times when someone tells an unpopular truth that is hard to debate, it'll be more gratifying to just silence that unpopular truth. And that is called human nature.
- gruseom 13y ago
  Someone who is expressing an unpopular opinion honestly, as opposed to just baiting or venting, can take care not to be disrespectful or accidentally provocative. I don't see why such comments wouldn't get endorsed.
- doorhammer 13y ago
  This is related to the problem I have. I think endorsing something, or upvoting it, or downvoting it is too ambiguous. I try to treat things like that the same way I would when I name something coding. I want the intent to be unambiguous. That's why I think the notion of giving a really limited subset of reasons to upvote or downvote something could be potentially useful. "Inflammatory" or some other, much better word, would better describe why I downvoted something, and might make it easier to take appropriate action on that, or figure out if the post is a one off for the user, or typical of their habits. All of this, of course, if heavily dependent on the moderators/creators of the community deciding what exactly they're trying to drive, as far as specific behavior (with or without the input of the community--it's their ship to guide).
twic 13y ago
In principle, this should work.
mcintyre1994 13y ago
"Don't downvote if you disagree" doesn't seem to work very well anywhere, so I'm not sure this will be any better in that regard.
- gruseom 13y ago
  Downvoting has always been used for disagreement on HN. It's a stubborn myth that that's somehow wrong or against the rules.

by gruseom 13y ago

jsmthrowaway 13y ago

> As I understand the idea, endorsing a comment doesn't mean you agree with it. Yeah, that's exactly how it will be used. Sarcasm aside, the word "endorse" has a very specific definition which basically guarantees how this system will be used, intentions or not. I think about every single grayed-out comment I've seen, downvoted simply because it shared an opinion that made people feel uncomfortable but was nonetheless on-point, and now realize that we'll never even see those comments. Real bummer for those inheriting HN to get it after this bad decision has been made. Will probably represent the end of useful dissent on HN.

tptacek 13y ago
It will work better than you think it will. People will endorse comments they disagree with just to get the opportunity to rebut them. Users don't debate things on HN to right the wrongs of the universe; they debate because debating is (or can be, when the comments aren't horrible) gratifying.
- rantanplan 13y ago
  No it won't actually. What you described might be the 1/1000 of the cases. Most of the times when someone tells an unpopular truth that is hard to debate, it'll be more gratifying to just silence that unpopular truth. And that is called human nature.
gruseom 13y ago
Someone who is expressing an unpopular opinion honestly, as opposed to just baiting or venting, can take care not to be disrespectful or accidentally provocative. I don't see why such comments wouldn't get endorsed.
doorhammer 13y ago
This is related to the problem I have. I think endorsing something, or upvoting it, or downvoting it is too ambiguous. I try to treat things like that the same way I would when I name something coding. I want the intent to be unambiguous. That's why I think the notion of giving a really limited subset of reasons to upvote or downvote something could be potentially useful. "Inflammatory" or some other, much better word, would better describe why I downvoted something, and might make it easier to take appropriate action on that, or figure out if the post is a one off for the user, or typical of their habits. All of this, of course, if heavily dependent on the moderators/creators of the community deciding what exactly they're trying to drive, as far as specific behavior (with or without the input of the community--it's their ship to guide).

twic 13y ago

In principle, this should work.

mcintyre1994 13y ago

"Don't downvote if you disagree" doesn't seem to work very well anywhere, so I'm not sure this will be any better in that regard.

gruseom 13y ago
Downvoting has always been used for disagreement on HN. It's a stubborn myth that that's somehow wrong or against the rules.