6 ms·

Must comments be soothing and agreeable to be appreciated at all? Is it okay to be caustic if you're also making a good point? For example, I often say intent

Must comments be soothing and agreeable to be appreciated at all? Is it okay to be caustic if you're also making a good point? For example, I often say intentionally chaotic things in relation to Microsoft stories because we have a history and this reflects my current impression of that company. That said, I find a lot of their recent changes, open source contributions, and future plans very agreeable and sometimes amazing and I try to point that out. So, is it ok to dredge up their past transgressions if I can simultaneously make positive observations regarding MSFT's future? Even though I tinge towards the negative/chaos, I notice that I can 'score' better with people whenever I put effort into the quality of my writing.

tptacek 12y ago
No, they merely need to be substantive.
- throwawaymaroon 12y ago
  This is a sensible policy only until you have to define what is and isn't substantive. Since "substantive" tends to evaluate to "it changed my mind or I don't believe it to be completely wrong," it becomes a subjective game very quickly. Arguing something that many people disagree with outright is inherently going to look negative no matter how 'substantive' it turns out to be.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    The post we're commenting on addresses this: this concern is why the guideline is enforced only as a community norm, not with code.
    - throwawaymaroon 12y ago
      In other words, it's a policy with no teeth, a simple admonishment? I mean, I don't disagree: I think this changes absolutely nothing. If anything it's a renewal of the old guidelines, not an addition to them. I suppose I think there's some ambiguity into what is intended, and there's therefore some investigation into HN's relationship with negativity going on. There's a kneejerk reaction to view this as an attempt to prevent people like me from spouting their usual hostility towards the tech scene, and I demand the right to be booed off stage!
  - Squarel 12y ago
    I run with "Would I say this to their face using these exact words if I was introduced to them in a room" If not, then perhaps I should rephrase it, to convey the same message, but perhaps without it being a personal attack.
    - throwawaymaroon 12y ago
      Online discussion simply isn't the same as being in a room with someone, or more precisely, it's a type of 'room' all its own. We're not being introduced to each other by mutual acquaintances who then have to get along with one another for the remainder of an evening. We're not even at a house party in a city we've never been to before meeting people that may become good friends. Nor are we at a press conference asking questions of a PR representative. Instead we can take up and discard facets of these situations as we see fit. ...I'm not saying it's a bad idea to consider your hypothetical when talking with other people online. It's probably a good idea in almost every discussion. But this room also allows us to be marvelously direct. The questions that everyone is thinking but don't get asked in a press conference can be addressed. That's why I back the right to be negative so heavily. Even if it means that we have totally rude, toxic threads that no one likes, I'd rather have that if it means we get to keep our online rooms open. (Partially because we're going to have those toxic threads anyway.) Everyone's an equal in the comment section, even if that means we're all equally poisoned.
      - dang 12y ago
        The flaw in your argument is its assumption that the community would remain intact under such poisoning. When the threads degenerate, smart people leave. When smart people leave, the threads get less substantive. That vicious cycle leads to the death of the community, not the vital online place where people are free to speak their minds which you're positing. HN started as [1] and remains an experiment in seeing whether an internet forum can avoid that dynamic. It's more fragile than your comment implies. I do think we can have the benefits you're talking about, such as people bringing up the questions they're really thinking, as long as the bulk of the community will consciously practice the values of the site. Those values are substantiveness and civility, and there's nothing in the good parts of what you're talking about that contradict them. Unleashing the online id, though, is another matter. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

tptacek 12y ago

No, they merely need to be substantive.

throwawaymaroon 12y ago
This is a sensible policy only until you have to define what is and isn't substantive. Since "substantive" tends to evaluate to "it changed my mind or I don't believe it to be completely wrong," it becomes a subjective game very quickly. Arguing something that many people disagree with outright is inherently going to look negative no matter how 'substantive' it turns out to be.
- tptacek 12y ago
  The post we're commenting on addresses this: this concern is why the guideline is enforced only as a community norm, not with code.
  - throwawaymaroon 12y ago
    In other words, it's a policy with no teeth, a simple admonishment? I mean, I don't disagree: I think this changes absolutely nothing. If anything it's a renewal of the old guidelines, not an addition to them. I suppose I think there's some ambiguity into what is intended, and there's therefore some investigation into HN's relationship with negativity going on. There's a kneejerk reaction to view this as an attempt to prevent people like me from spouting their usual hostility towards the tech scene, and I demand the right to be booed off stage!
- Squarel 12y ago
  I run with "Would I say this to their face using these exact words if I was introduced to them in a room" If not, then perhaps I should rephrase it, to convey the same message, but perhaps without it being a personal attack.
  - throwawaymaroon 12y ago
    Online discussion simply isn't the same as being in a room with someone, or more precisely, it's a type of 'room' all its own. We're not being introduced to each other by mutual acquaintances who then have to get along with one another for the remainder of an evening. We're not even at a house party in a city we've never been to before meeting people that may become good friends. Nor are we at a press conference asking questions of a PR representative. Instead we can take up and discard facets of these situations as we see fit. ...I'm not saying it's a bad idea to consider your hypothetical when talking with other people online. It's probably a good idea in almost every discussion. But this room also allows us to be marvelously direct. The questions that everyone is thinking but don't get asked in a press conference can be addressed. That's why I back the right to be negative so heavily. Even if it means that we have totally rude, toxic threads that no one likes, I'd rather have that if it means we get to keep our online rooms open. (Partially because we're going to have those toxic threads anyway.) Everyone's an equal in the comment section, even if that means we're all equally poisoned.
    - dang 12y ago
      The flaw in your argument is its assumption that the community would remain intact under such poisoning. When the threads degenerate, smart people leave. When smart people leave, the threads get less substantive. That vicious cycle leads to the death of the community, not the vital online place where people are free to speak their minds which you're positing. HN started as [1] and remains an experiment in seeing whether an internet forum can avoid that dynamic. It's more fragile than your comment implies. I do think we can have the benefits you're talking about, such as people bringing up the questions they're really thinking, as long as the bulk of the community will consciously practice the values of the site. Those values are substantiveness and civility, and there's nothing in the good parts of what you're talking about that contradict them. Unleashing the online id, though, is another matter. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html