4 ms·

Yes, we need more detailed guidelines. I was talking about this over in one of the pending comments threads (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7484304 https:

by britta 13y ago

Yes, we need more detailed guidelines. I was talking about this over in one of the pending comments threads (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7484304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7484304), but "be civil", no name calling, and "no classic flamewar topics" are also way too vague. They're not a clear and enforceable code of conduct.

tptacek 13y ago
Wikipedia has some norms that, if imperfect, actually do seem to impact the site. "Civility" is a norm that seems to have a significant impact, and it's hard to think of a case in which incivility --- which is prominently featured every day on HN --- is ever worth hosting here. "Assume Good Faith" is another norm that seems to cut pretty closely to what Paul Graham was trying to say with his "collegiality" norm.
- britta 13y ago
  Yeah, that's an interesting example. Wikipedia spells out "civility" in great detail - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Avoiding_incivility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Avoiding_in... has friendly human-readable advice to prevent incivility, like "Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil" and "Other people can misread your passion as aggression". And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying... provides a reasonably comprehensive list of types of incivility, to help identify what breaks the guideline. And then there's a stated process for dealing with serious problems.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Wikipedia's impressive documentation goes hand-in-hand with a Wikipedia community problem --- lawyering. Spelling norms out in that level of detail risks making a sport of out spotting and "enforcing" the norms. Wikipedia's problem-solving mechanisms are impressive and effective for a project with a single coherent goal, but they aren't good at fostering community. In fact, they do the opposite thing: they artificially factionalize the community, which holds together despite and not because of those mechanisms.
    - britta 13y ago
      Sure, it gets messy to try to comprehensively document all types of incivility and only enforce what is described there. HN would benefit from a friendly middle ground between that legalistic style and simply saying "be civil".
DanBC 13y ago
Honestly, people do not need multiple pages of documentation for behaviour guidelines. "Don't be a dick" covers most of it. "Don't attack the person making a point. And don't be vicious when you attack their point; test it, probe it; destroy it; just don't be vicious". Sadly having extensive documentation about what is or is not allowed leads to destructive bike shedding and comcern trolling.
- britta 13y ago
  I wish everyone understood what "don't be a dick" means, but sadly, a lot of people don't get it. Adding the small extra details of "Don't attack the person making a point" and "don't be vicious" would be improvements on the current guidelines. Also, for example, adding "sarcasm is not helpful".

by britta 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

Wikipedia has some norms that, if imperfect, actually do seem to impact the site. "Civility" is a norm that seems to have a significant impact, and it's hard to think of a case in which incivility --- which is prominently featured every day on HN --- is ever worth hosting here. "Assume Good Faith" is another norm that seems to cut pretty closely to what Paul Graham was trying to say with his "collegiality" norm.

britta 13y ago
Yeah, that's an interesting example. Wikipedia spells out "civility" in great detail - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Avoiding_incivility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Avoiding_in... has friendly human-readable advice to prevent incivility, like "Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil" and "Other people can misread your passion as aggression". And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying... provides a reasonably comprehensive list of types of incivility, to help identify what breaks the guideline. And then there's a stated process for dealing with serious problems.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Wikipedia's impressive documentation goes hand-in-hand with a Wikipedia community problem --- lawyering. Spelling norms out in that level of detail risks making a sport of out spotting and "enforcing" the norms. Wikipedia's problem-solving mechanisms are impressive and effective for a project with a single coherent goal, but they aren't good at fostering community. In fact, they do the opposite thing: they artificially factionalize the community, which holds together despite and not because of those mechanisms.
  - britta 13y ago
    Sure, it gets messy to try to comprehensively document all types of incivility and only enforce what is described there. HN would benefit from a friendly middle ground between that legalistic style and simply saying "be civil".

DanBC 13y ago

Honestly, people do not need multiple pages of documentation for behaviour guidelines. "Don't be a dick" covers most of it. "Don't attack the person making a point. And don't be vicious when you attack their point; test it, probe it; destroy it; just don't be vicious". Sadly having extensive documentation about what is or is not allowed leads to destructive bike shedding and comcern trolling.

britta 13y ago
I wish everyone understood what "don't be a dick" means, but sadly, a lot of people don't get it. Adding the small extra details of "Don't attack the person making a point" and "don't be vicious" would be improvements on the current guidelines. Also, for example, adding "sarcasm is not helpful".