Whoever you are, notakarmawhore, thanks for registering a dummy account to do this. Personally, I am far less annoyed by down-voting, trolling and bias, than I am by the people who are increasingly using "community" posts to bump their karma.
In particular, the "Ask YC/Ask PG" posts ("Ask PG: what color is your belly button lint?") were cool at first, but lately, they're contributing less signal, and more noise.
Perhaps there should be an option for this on the submission page: almost "post anonymously", but you'd still have to log in to do it (though your name won't appear on the submission), and if the karma of the article became negative it would still apply to you.
Articles can't have negative karma, and I think the only incentive to not posting a lot of crap is the reputation you build with your peers. Anonymous posts would take away from that.
Well, the admins/editors would still know who you were, and could chastise you privately. Perhaps, further, only accounts with high amounts (>100?) of karma could post anonymously?
I personally this the ASK YC posts are what make HN a great resources for entrepeneurs. I'm not really interest in PG's belly button lint, but please keep the ASK YC posts coming!
"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. 'That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3.'"
Not to be an old-timer snob (because I haven't actually been here very long, but I hung onto reddit from the start until I couldn't take it any longer, and I really like the current style here)... anyway...
Here's an idea: Don't allow people to up-vote on ANYTHING (stories or comments) until they get a karma of 25.
I'd like people to take note of the not complaining about being downvoted item. Though it only applies to the discussion of downvoting in general by extension, I'd really rather not see another thread about the evils of the downvote button. If fear of karma loss stops you from voicing an unpopular opinion then I'd rather not hear from you.
I think the majority of people disagree (in face to face communications). Although passive aggressive is not good, its far more common to behave that way face to face then outright aggression.
And the guidelines talk about making it more like face to face and less like traditional online forums.
I think a culture where people aggressively argue their views is better. But, people need to not identify too much with their ideas. They need to be able to say "switch" and start arguing the other side with the same intensity. But that intensity is going to be the difference between good and great.
And I'm fine with the majority of people disagreeing with me. The majority of people are idiots happy with good enough. :)
>I think a culture where people aggressively argue their views is better.
I disagree (but I upmodded you).
>But, people need to not identify too much with their ideas. They need to be able to say "switch" and start arguing the other side with the same intensity.
Yes - that is informed debate - but I don't think that is what people are arguing against - its more the silly stuff that every other forum ever created seems to degrade to.
>The majority of people are idiots happy with good enough. :)
Well thats just mean ;) And certainly not something you would say to a "happy idiot" in person. Not if you want to achieve anything other then a punch in the face anyway ;)
would have more effect if written by PG or nickb, instead a person who has 12 karma and created their account an hour ago. I'm not saying this community doesn't need a refresher in discipline but who is this guy to give it.
The guidelines are short enough that they could go on the actual http://news.ycombinator.com/submit page or at the very least there should be a link to http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html there.
Whoever you are, notakarmawhore, thanks for registering a dummy account to do this. Personally, I am far less annoyed by down-voting, trolling and bias, than I am by the people who are increasingly using "community" posts to bump their karma.
In particular, the "Ask YC/Ask PG" posts ("Ask PG: what color is your belly button lint?") were cool at first, but lately, they're contributing less signal, and more noise.
Perhaps there should be an option for this on the submission page: almost "post anonymously", but you'd still have to log in to do it (though your name won't appear on the submission), and if the karma of the article became negative it would still apply to you.
Articles can't have negative karma, and I think the only incentive to not posting a lot of crap is the reputation you build with your peers. Anonymous posts would take away from that.
Well, the admins/editors would still know who you were, and could chastise you privately. Perhaps, further, only accounts with high amounts (>100?) of karma could post anonymously?
That would be strange indeed - when you can just make up a new account instead.
I personally this the ASK YC posts are what make HN a great resources for entrepeneurs. I'm not really interest in PG's belly button lint, but please keep the ASK YC posts coming!
Its good (s)he put this up. It does clarify things, and many people have missed it.
For example, I only saw these guidelines for first time 11hrs ago, and I've been here for 39 days.
How is this hacker news?
Now that is the funniest thing I've seen in ages. At least I hope you mean it that way.
Could you give more details what's wrong?
guys, downmod him to -10, as a demonstration.
edit: or me, whatever floats your boat.
Two hints, guys:
-9 != -10
-11 != -10
This is definitely not going well:
"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. 'That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3.'"
The problem I see is this: when people disobey this rule, lately they don't get modded down. The rudeness level seems to be rising significantly.
How do you mod a comment down, anyway?
get ~25 karma, then you can
Not to be an old-timer snob (because I haven't actually been here very long, but I hung onto reddit from the start until I couldn't take it any longer, and I really like the current style here)... anyway...
Here's an idea: Don't allow people to up-vote on ANYTHING (stories or comments) until they get a karma of 25.
Could someone explain me what's wrong with my previous comment?
Something going wrong recently: People posting off-topic links, especially political stuff.
Perhaps we have to sort out if merely posting off-topic links is bad - or only upmodding.
From a practical point of view I tend to favor the first.
I'd like people to take note of the not complaining about being downvoted item. Though it only applies to the discussion of downvoting in general by extension, I'd really rather not see another thread about the evils of the downvote button. If fear of karma loss stops you from voicing an unpopular opinion then I'd rather not hear from you.
I much prefer the actual aggression that results in people seeming rude when they forcefully present their views to this sort of passive aggression.
I think the majority of people disagree (in face to face communications). Although passive aggressive is not good, its far more common to behave that way face to face then outright aggression.
And the guidelines talk about making it more like face to face and less like traditional online forums.
I think a culture where people aggressively argue their views is better. But, people need to not identify too much with their ideas. They need to be able to say "switch" and start arguing the other side with the same intensity. But that intensity is going to be the difference between good and great.
And I'm fine with the majority of people disagreeing with me. The majority of people are idiots happy with good enough. :)
>I think a culture where people aggressively argue their views is better.
I disagree (but I upmodded you). >But, people need to not identify too much with their ideas. They need to be able to say "switch" and start arguing the other side with the same intensity.
Yes - that is informed debate - but I don't think that is what people are arguing against - its more the silly stuff that every other forum ever created seems to degrade to.
>The majority of people are idiots happy with good enough. :)
Well thats just mean ;) And certainly not something you would say to a "happy idiot" in person. Not if you want to achieve anything other then a punch in the face anyway ;)
"And certainly not something you would say to a "happy idiot" in person."
You obviously haven't met me.
No but I have met many like you. Well not many, but some. And its not common.
would have more effect if written by PG or nickb, instead a person who has 12 karma and created their account an hour ago. I'm not saying this community doesn't need a refresher in discipline but who is this guy to give it.
his account name says he's not karma whoring. in other words, he made a new account just to avoid getting free karma on his main account.
Indeed. And even if he were some new user who wasn't pg, his point would still be valid, and shouldn't just be dismissed offhand.
sorry thought the name was a cheap shot at other users, instead of the obvious of what it was, good 2nd point.
Is -23 really necessary? It was an honest mistake, deserving of -1 at worst...