zlacker

I've noticed that moving the goalposts is extremely prevalent on HN, which makes for pretty frustrating conversations (or just reading). And then sometimes it's a tag team. E.g.:

Person A writes their comment. Person B1 offers a rebuttal. Personal A offers their response. Person B2 offers a second rebuttal that abandons the premise behind B1's rebuttal, and may actually be at odds with it. Person A ends up either deflated or looking defeated.

It's like the cross product of a Gish gallop and a DDoS.

>>cxr+(OP)
I think of it more as graffiti. Somebody has a new thought, they write it on a wall somewhere (append it to a thread). Not always in 'response' to anything. Is there a better way to expand on a topic? It has to go somewhere, and all there are, is threads.

>>cxr+(OP)
This is especially frustrating when A's response is only within the context of B1's rebuttal, not A's full position. B2 then attacks the response as if it were A's full position.

I like the DDoS analogy...

>>cxr+(OP)
It's a long tradition!

https://smbx.org/bsg-guide-for-sending-email/

Proposed Symbolics guidelines for mail messages

BSG 4/11/84

[...]

It is customary to attack the someone by including his or her message, indented (unless you are using MM), and replying point by point, as someone debating someone they are watching on TV, or hearing on the radio.

It is considered artful to append many messages on a subject, leaving only the most inflammatory lines from each, and reply to all in one swift blow. The choice of lines to support your argument can make or break your case.

Replying to one's own message is a rarely-exposed technique for switching positions once you have thought about something only after sending mail.

[...]

You get 3 opportunities to advertise your Rock band, no more.

Idiosyncratic indentations, double-spacing, capitalization, etc., while stamps of individuality, leave one an easy target for parody.

[...]