zlacker

> I think the guidelines are a great way of encouraging us all to be more thoughtful to others comments, and have noticed a difference in the way I might comment HN.

The guidelines are somewhat of a joke, and are only followed (even by mods) when it is convenient to do so.

For example, I've been repremanded in the past by our supreme leader dang for posting comments like "do you have a source for that?", because he assumed it was too hostile while he completely ignored his own 'hacker' 'news' guideline of 'assume good faith' (I was literally asking someone to source the information/argument they posted here.. but hey good job on completely derailing that discussion dang!)

>>crafty+(OP)
"do you have a source for that?", especially when phrased that way, is a statement made in bad faith, because it indicates that you believe that there's a chance the statement is unsourced (as opposed to "can you please cite this?").

>>saagar+Wd
I find it very difficult to believe that is a direct quotation from dang. Not only that, your parent called dang "supreme leader" (i.e. dictator, guilty of atrocities). This is clearly absurd and hyperbolic verbiage. Extremely "colorful" language is modern rhetoric of the worst kind.

>>crafty+(OP)
Where did I do that?

>>dang+lD
Ironically, the source of said admonishment wasn't forthcoming, by GP...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19984428

> Ok, but "got any sources for that?" is a rather unsubstantive contribution, and then going on tilt about getting downvoted breaks the site guidelines outright. Would you mind raising the signal/noise ratio of what you post here?

It seems the attempt to correct a low "signal / noise ratio", in this instance, seems to be back firing.

>>cmroan+pd1
I'm not sure what you mean, the link you posted showed itself to be 100% accurate with the claim.

>>celtic+ah2
The issue in that case was more the added bit about downvotes, which broke the site guidelines.

>>dang+f03
The claim of the other poster was accurate. The question of whether you were being fair or not doesn't change that.

>>celtic+Gb3
It wasn't accurate. They mentioned the lesser part of why I moderated the comment and omitted the greater part, which is what most people do when telling a story about how we suppressed them unfairly. That's presumably why such stories never come with links, which would allow readers to make up their own minds about what happened.

>>celtic+ah2
The claim is lopsided. @dang implies how the original comment wasn't all that great... but wasn't a real problem, & it wasn't until the comment was edited to include the downvotes that @dang intervened. That the commenter re-raised the issue again here as the reason for @dang intervening in the first place seems to be incorrect, as I read it.

>>dang+Dz3
> That's presumably why such stories never come with links

No, I didn't include a link because I was posting from my phone, and "hacker" "news" doesn't include a sane way to search through thread history for specific comments. I'm glad someone else went through the trouble.

But hey, you're free to continue to not assume good faith, right?

>>crafty+fA4
I said most people and presumably as a way of not jumping to that conclusion about you. The pattern in general is very consistent. But I can see how it would be annoying to read that, if your preference really was to provide a link.