You have a good point, but it came across poorly. If you want people to listen to your ideas, let them know using respect and proper language. HN is not a place for slang, rants, or frequent uses of capitalization.
I would prefer it if people responded to the content of a remark, rather than the tone. I agree with what Paul Graham wrote here:
"The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
'I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.'
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.
So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where."
I myself have been downvoted a lot due to tone, rather than substance. This, more than anything else, has caused me to cut back my participation on Hacker News. If people are going to react to my tone, then I do not think I want to post much here.
I don't think this is as much about tone as it is the manners and recklessness. You are using Paul's essay, How to Disagree, to take an in-depth look at comments, but you're forgetting the basic rules that are set forth in the HN guidelines.
Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
...
Please don't use uppercase for emphasis.
angryindian's comment disregards both of these rules. And while it is not mentioned in the guidelines, most HN users would agree that poor grammar, punctuation, and writing overall signify that a comment has been made without proper time and/or thought.
The manners and the quality of the comment are the reasons why I disliked it. The tone is something different all together (don't confuse it with manners). As Paul said, a tone is hard to judge and varies from person to person. However, manners and quality of writing are something that get in way of the substance and bring down the overall quality of the site. Comments that lack these traits should be frowned upon.
Before you cut back on HN, think about what tone really is.
Ah, there's several orthogonal levels of discussion going on. It's true that responding to tone is a poor form of disagreement, but it's a very good form of enforcing social norms. And once social norms are violated, it's often better to try and enforce them than to ignore the violation and engage the violator on his own terms.
philwelch, I think you miss the point. If the downvoting was aimed at remarks that were attempting to sabotage Hacker News, then you might have some ground to stand on. But the posts I'm thinking of involve material that I think should be allowed on Hacker News. So then the issue comes up, whose community norms are you enforcing? Not mine, that is sure. And what happens if I find myself in a community whose norms are different than mine? I leave. What is the end result of that, repeated, for many people?
My experience online has seen the same pattern, over and over, since the 90s:
1.) community is diverse and interesting
2.) core group finds some way to enforce community norms that match the preference of that core group
3.) some people leave the group because they disagree with the community norms being enforced by core group
4.) community becomes less diverse as it becomes increasingly associated with its particular community norms
5.) community becomes less interesting for the diverse group, simply because it is now less diverse
Downvoting on Hacker News is limited to those who've acquired some points, so when we talk about downvoting, we are automatically talking about a core group.
I like the way Clay Shirky describes things in his essay "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy"
I do think, at its best, Hacker News functions both as a source of information, but also as a source of emotional support for those who are trying to do startups. To the extent that the emotional support is an important element, what Shirky says about Bion is relevant:
"Bion was a psychologist who was doing group therapy with groups of neurotics. (Drawing parallels between that and the Internet is left as an exercise for the reader.) The thing that Bion discovered was that the neurotics in his care were, as a group, conspiring to defeat therapy."
and in particular:
"Now, Bion decided that what he was watching with the neurotics was the group defending itself against his attempts to make the group do what they said they were supposed to do. The group was convened to get better, this group of people was in therapy to get better. But they were defeating that. And he said, there are some very specific patterns that they're entering into to defeat the ostensible purpose of the group meeting together. And he detailed three patterns."
To the extent that Hacker News exists to be supportive of entrepreneurs, then aggressive downvoting is part of the pattern whereby a group undermines itself. I am going to be misunderstood on this point, so let me be clear: I do not think perpetual cheeriness is supportive of entrepreneurs, rather, I think honest feedback is, even when that feedback is harsh. Therefore I think a harsh tone is often the best way to be truly supportive of an entrepreneur. But a harsh tone is what often draws downvotes on Hacker News.
What you call "enforcing social norms" can also be called "telling people to go away". Because that is the effect - you are telling people "If you use that tone, we want you to go away." And this is in regards to remarks that are true. We are, after all, discussing remarks that were correct but got downvoted because of their tone. To me, this is the early part of the process of uniting a group against an external enemy:
"The second basic pattern that Bion detailed: The identification and vilification of external enemies. This is a very common pattern. Anyone who was around the Open Source movement in the mid-Nineties could see this all the time. If you cared about Linux on the desktop, there was a big list of jobs to do. But you could always instead get a conversation going about Microsoft and Bill Gates. And people would start bleeding from their ears, they would get so mad."
Hacker News is still young, and has not yet acquired this kind of total group think. But that is a risk that it faces. And the External Enemy it seems the most likely to unite against is those of us who say harsh but true things about technologies and startups.
I think I mostly get downvoted when people think I'm saying something negative. I think others also get downvoted for similar reasons. Positive remarks (about a person or business or technology) seem to get less downvotes than negative ones.
If you "enforce community norms" against people who say things that are true, but whose tone is harsh, then you will end up with a community where only a so-called "positive attitude" is allowed. And the kind of positive attitude I'm thinking of here is superficial and dangerous. I wrote about this in 2009, and I will quote myself:
What is the point of this thing called a “positive attitude”? Much of it is political – a desire to avoid facing painful realities. Often this is done to keep together a coalition of people – that is, to keep a group of people supportive of a project. We might be talking about the Iraq war, where the American government has relentlessly painted a prettier picture than what reality justified – and this lying was meant to keep the American people supportive of the war. Or we might be talking about a money losing business, in which case the workers and managers might by lying to the investors, so as to keep the investors supportive of the business. And for those who want to make their living that way, this is the one real use of a “positive attitude”.
This is the only positive attitude that a project really needs: the belief that a project can succeed. Once you have that belief, everything else should be criticism: what isn’t working, what needs to be fixed? Happy talk is the enemy of truth, and lies are an effective way to take a viable project and kill it.
What I said in 2009 applies to Hacker News in 2011. Harshness can be a good thing, but you won't get much of it if you downvote it in the name of "enforcing community norms".
lkruber, I think that you are missing the point. What you have written obviously comes after great time and thought, but I'm essentially going to ignore it as I disagree with what you say in the first paragraph.
If the downvoting was aimed at remarks that were attempting
to sabotage Hacker News, then you might have some ground to
stand on. But the posts I'm thinking of involve material that
I think should be allowed on Hacker News.
I'm going to keep this short.
First of all, you imply that intentions matter (by using the word "attempting). The truth is that they shouldn't matter. If someone comes to HN trying to contribute with good quality but fails, they should be treated the same as those who come looking to make trouble and end up making content of the same bad quality. In essence, we shouldn't look at people's intentions because they are impossible to judge and because it is something that isn't done in the real world.
Secondly, you mention that you think the posts you're thinking of should be allowed on HN. But the truth is that philwelch and I don't. The whole point of this argument is exactly that. You then ignore this argument and go onto to tackle bigger and unrelated problems. Rather, you should have just stayed with the same issue we have been discussing the past few comments.
" But the truth is that philwelch and I don't. The whole point of this argument is exactly that."
Yes, exactly. That's what I said. The disagreement is fundamental. I was trying to get you to realize what the end result will be of the trajectory you are following. But you write "I'm essentially going to ignore it". As such, there is not much more that I can say. It is time for me to end my participation on Hacker News.
I urge you to reconsider being influenced by a minority who aren't using the voting feature with the spirit intended. Your contributions are very rarely net downvoted, and your average karma/comment is actually better than almost half of the http://news.ycombinator.com/leaders list.
I was responsible for downvoting that comment as I disagreed with the content. What bothered me was the following phrase:
I urge you to reconsider being influenced by a minority who
aren't using the voting feature with the spirit intended.
As this was clearly directed to people like me, I feel the need to justify my intentions. Saying that I am part of the minority and am using the voting feature incorrectly is a bold statement that is coming without justification or evidence. Both of you should go back and read the HN Guidelines again in order to be reminded of what determines if a comment is of good quality or bad quality. I use the voting featured based off the HN Guidelines, which I would say is the spirit intended. It's that simple.
You are correct. I'm sorry, for some reason I honestly thought our host (and the author of "How to Disagree") had taken a stand against such downvotes, but after doing my homework I'm somewhat dismayed to see he's fine with it.
