While I personally don't condone obscenities, insults and ad hominems in a discussion, I couldn't help notice that most of the time HN audience downvotes comments according to their signal/noise ratio, which means that we're willing to tolerate even occasional obscenities for the sakes of a valuable contribution.
In the first example you pointed to, pw0ncakes actually made a rather valuable contribution to the discussion, despite obscenities. He gave the view of the other side of the story, the side you seem to have completely overlooked in your original post. Let's also be honest here and admit that it's very naive to expect calm and collected responses from everyone after writing an inflammatory, one-sided post on an emotionally significant topic. In the old Internet jargon, we would describe your situation as "he trolled and they flamed him for it". That does not justify what happened, but pointing it out might help avoid your readers getting a one-sided interpretation yet again.
Another thing I would like to point out about pw0ncakes' comment is that it's actually not the most voted. His comment has 61 points and is served first, just like you noted. However, the most voted comment was posted by apsec112, has 116 votes and has no obscenities whatsoever. It might not seem important, but it's really recommended to thoroughly check your facts before addressing your audience, especially if you're going to accuse that audience of improper behavior.
Yet another point worth noting is your own writing style in this latest post. I'm sure you've heard it said that people in glass houses should not throw stones. If you really expect a calm and rational discussion, then I would wholeheartedly recommend avoiding rhetorical tricks like "OK, HN folks, let βer rip. I can take it." Setting yourself up as a victim in advance is pathos. Considering that your post is asking for logos and ethos, it seems like a bit of a double standard to me.
Last, but not least, I'd like to state that I actually agree with most of your suggestions on improving the quality of comments and the user experience with them. Certainly #3 is an excellent idea. While I believe that #2 might be a good one, it should be studied for other side-effects it might have on social dynamics here. As for #1, I firmly believe that people should have the right to post anonymously if they want to. I prefer to do it in a public way, which is why my username is connected to my blog, which in turn has my real name, but I would not presume to take away other people's rights. Especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings.
Thank you. Well written and fair points. I was expecting negative comments and wrote "let 'er rip" as a way to add some levity. But you're right that it doesn't achieve what I'm after. I will change it.
You sound much better here than in the rest of the thread. Perhaps the lesson to be drawn from this exchange is to rise above whatever it is people throw at you. If they act rudely, and you respond cordially, you force them to meet you at your level.
And if that doesn't happen, I assure you the ruder person will be downvoted.
I'd like to get philosophical about 'obscenities' for a bit.
A mature discussion must include diverse input, or you sacrifice the benefit of a diverse group.
I think it's unproductive to try to sanitize discourse by removing hyperbole or perceived obscenity. Such 'civil' exchanges leave the idea of 'obscene' an open variable, ready to take whatever shape the accuser wishes to vilify. The very concept becomes a censorship device. I think many people see the hypocrisy inherent and intentionally evoke obscenity while maintaining their salient points.(At work in the above example.) This is an attack on the concept of obscenity itself, and the tenuous standards of the civility enforcer.
I'm open to other interpretations, but to me it's like this:
Making a discussion PG-13 isn't a sign of maturity, it's the opposite.
While I personally don't condone obscenities, insults and ad hominems in a discussion, I couldn't help notice that most of the time HN audience downvotes comments according to their signal/noise ratio, which means that we're willing to tolerate even occasional obscenities for the sakes of a valuable contribution.
In the first example you pointed to, pw0ncakes actually made a rather valuable contribution to the discussion, despite obscenities. He gave the view of the other side of the story, the side you seem to have completely overlooked in your original post. Let's also be honest here and admit that it's very naive to expect calm and collected responses from everyone after writing an inflammatory, one-sided post on an emotionally significant topic. In the old Internet jargon, we would describe your situation as "he trolled and they flamed him for it". That does not justify what happened, but pointing it out might help avoid your readers getting a one-sided interpretation yet again.
Another thing I would like to point out about pw0ncakes' comment is that it's actually not the most voted. His comment has 61 points and is served first, just like you noted. However, the most voted comment was posted by apsec112, has 116 votes and has no obscenities whatsoever. It might not seem important, but it's really recommended to thoroughly check your facts before addressing your audience, especially if you're going to accuse that audience of improper behavior.
Yet another point worth noting is your own writing style in this latest post. I'm sure you've heard it said that people in glass houses should not throw stones. If you really expect a calm and rational discussion, then I would wholeheartedly recommend avoiding rhetorical tricks like "OK, HN folks, let βer rip. I can take it." Setting yourself up as a victim in advance is pathos. Considering that your post is asking for logos and ethos, it seems like a bit of a double standard to me.
Last, but not least, I'd like to state that I actually agree with most of your suggestions on improving the quality of comments and the user experience with them. Certainly #3 is an excellent idea. While I believe that #2 might be a good one, it should be studied for other side-effects it might have on social dynamics here. As for #1, I firmly believe that people should have the right to post anonymously if they want to. I prefer to do it in a public way, which is why my username is connected to my blog, which in turn has my real name, but I would not presume to take away other people's rights. Especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings.
Cordially yours,
Vojislav Stojkovic