> Editing out inflammatory language is the low-hanging fruit of optimizing for signal/noise ratio.
I'd like to gently suggest that you put that, or something to that effect, in the HN guidelines.
> 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."
> Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.
By my assessment, your observation adds information that is not currently covered. "...calling names..." is a facet of the inflammatory language that hacker news could do without. But blatant name calling is a relatively small (and obvious) portion of the noise generating language that actually occurs. The other more insidious forms of inflammatory language are either less obvious or more likely to be rationalized.
I feel like some hacker news commenters* are more likely to add inflammatory language if they feel like the rest of their* comment(s) is/are otherwise high signal.
It's kind of like dipping into a savings account to break (the spirit of) the guidelines. They* rationalize the [sarcasm, incredulity, overt disdain, indignant rage, mockery, etc.] because they* feel entitled to the luxury and misjudge the consequences of it.
* Weasel words: I know I've done this. But I suspect I'm not the only one.
Gentle suggestion gently received. We're definitely going to do something like this. It'll to take time for the pieces to fall into place, though. It's trivial to edit the guidelines; what's not trivial is to think until you see the next good thing to do.
You and me both, by the way; it took me a long time to realize that the sarcasm I used to put into my comments (mainly because I wanted them not to be bland) was amplifying the wrong things. And I still have to consciously catch myself.
I'd like to gently suggest that you put that, or something to that effect, in the HN guidelines.
> 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."
> Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.
By my assessment, your observation adds information that is not currently covered. "...calling names..." is a facet of the inflammatory language that hacker news could do without. But blatant name calling is a relatively small (and obvious) portion of the noise generating language that actually occurs. The other more insidious forms of inflammatory language are either less obvious or more likely to be rationalized.
I feel like some hacker news commenters* are more likely to add inflammatory language if they feel like the rest of their* comment(s) is/are otherwise high signal.
It's kind of like dipping into a savings account to break (the spirit of) the guidelines. They* rationalize the [sarcasm, incredulity, overt disdain, indignant rage, mockery, etc.] because they* feel entitled to the luxury and misjudge the consequences of it.
* Weasel words: I know I've done this. But I suspect I'm not the only one.