
The Zen of HN - mcav
http://github.com/mcav/zen-of-hn/raw/df10634090b6ee024978949c18a885218f128a65/zen-of-hn.txt
======
cool-RR
I don't think downvotes should be used for disagreeing.

~~~
mcav
Right; that was intended to mean that people sometimes use them for
disagreement, despite that they probably shouldn't. Any thoughts on a better
wording?

~~~
pygy
Actually, there should be no correlations between votes and agreement.

Upvotes should reward civil comments that feed the conversation
constructively.

Aggressivity, and empty posts ("cheerleaders", etc.) should be downvoted.

Flags are for grossly offensive or illegal content.

That was the original intent IIRC: encouraging civil conversation. Tying votes
with agreement leads to groupthink. We should encourage diversity unless we
want to become a close-minded community, reinforcing it's own biases.

~~~
gojomo
I totally agree that you've described the ideal.

Unfortunately, with the UI and people's natural tendencies, it's unavoidable
that votes be used for quick-and-easy agreement/disagreement.

And there's a certain alluring efficiency to it: once there's a couplet of
opposed viewpoints, just weigh in with your "vote". That's what "votes" are
for in a democracy, right?

The habit of only using downvotes to signal disagreement when a comment is
highly-rated helps a bit, but isn't universally applied and and throws time-
of-vote in as a confounding signal. (There are comments that I will upvote if
<0, abstain if 1-2, and downvote if >2 -- so it all depends on when I see it.
With others doing the same, totals are more reflective of 'the last few
voters' than the community.)

These could be addressed by UI changes. One idea I've plugged before would be
to offer a separate axis of voting which is explicitly agree/disagree -- so
people aren't tempted to use promote/demote that way.

Agreement scores could also be hidden until a user votes -- so each vote is
independent. This makes more sense on a pure agree/disagree scale than
promote/demote. PG clearly wants to discourage demote piling-on; he first
tried through suasion and when that failed now enforces in software the -8
floor. And discouraging piling-on makes sense: demotion-votes sting with a
sense of community censure, while disagreement is just a normal healthy part
of conversation. My ideal comment would be a +50 on the promote-scale, and a
-50 on the agree-scale. It means people appreciate having heard something they
disagree with, so some novelty/signal/thought is occurring.

~~~
jodrellblank
_Unfortunately, with the UI and people's natural tendencies, it's unavoidable
that votes be used for quick-and-easy agreement/disagreement._

At the moment yes, but why not:

Agree/Disagree Good contribution/Poor Contribution.

Instead of just up/down.

~~~
jurjenhaitsma
I concur with your proposal and suggest fleshing it out by having 4
directional modifiers:

 _UP_ for agree (Propably the most common action)

 _LEFT_ for good contribution / insightful / well-constructed argument

 _DOWN_ for disagree

 _RIGHT_ for bad contribution / troll

This would enable rating of votes in 2 dimensions and may possibly map to a
page layout (ie agree+good at top left, then the not so good but still agreed
being placed further to the right)

Could alternatively have the comments coloured based on good/bad value
(probably some sort of logarithmic scale) and sorted vertically by
agree/disagree value, which would still allow conversation threads...

~~~
eru
I'd use right for agree. The mnemonic is easier. And up for a good
contribution, because it ups the level of discussion.

------
mcav
Python has cool, witty Zen. This is not as cool and hardly witty, but I
figured I'd take a stab at it and let the rest of you improve or rewrite it.
It's on GitHub, and I'm no poet, so feel free to edit/fork/dismiss as you see
fit.

------
anuraggoel
You could add something to the effect of 'say nothing you wouldn't say to our
face'.

~~~
ErrantX
perhaps "say nothing rude you wouldn't say to my face".

There are lots of constructing things you can contribute here which you might
not want to say to someone in a live debate (Im thinking, for example, the
drugs discussion that went on a while back) :D

------
swolchok
Ironically, this article violates its urge to "meta-discuss sparingly" by
meta-discussing for a whole article. (Attempts to point out the same irony in
this comment will suffer from the same problem.)

~~~
gamache
I think the article counts as "sparing".

------
tdavis
It might be a personal thing, but I never submit anything I've personally
written. I leave it to others to figure out if it warrants being on Hacker
News.

(in reference to posting stuff from one's own blog lines)

------
hahadenny
test

------
hahadenny
this is good

------
thras
Personally, I always downvote based upon human worth. Upvotes? Only if I think
you're hot.

~~~
cool-RR
I think not many people feel attracted to you right now.

~~~
thras
I know. My self-appraisal of my own human worth just went down the toilet.

------
rms
In clapping both hands a sound is heard: what is the sound of the one hand?

------
Tichy
If the crowd does not vote up the prophet, the prophet shall vote up himself

------
rokhayakebe
Downvotes are nothing less than barbaric. You are hurting someone just because
you disagree with their point of view.

