Whoever you are, notakarmawhore, thanks for registering a dummy account to do this. Personally, I am far less annoyed by down-voting, trolling and bias, than I am by the people who are increasingly using "community" posts to bump their karma.
In particular, the "Ask YC/Ask PG" posts ("Ask PG: what color is your belly button lint?") were cool at first, but lately, they're contributing less signal, and more noise.
Perhaps there should be an option for this on the submission page: almost "post anonymously", but you'd still have to log in to do it (though your name won't appear on the submission), and if the karma of the article became negative it would still apply to you.
Articles can't have negative karma, and I think the only incentive to not posting a lot of crap is the reputation you build with your peers. Anonymous posts would take away from that.
Well, the admins/editors would still know who you were, and could chastise you privately. Perhaps, further, only accounts with high amounts (>100?) of karma could post anonymously?
I personally this the ASK YC posts are what make HN a great resources for entrepeneurs. I'm not really interest in PG's belly button lint, but please keep the ASK YC posts coming!
"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.'"
Not to be an old-timer snob (because I haven't actually been here very long, but I hung onto reddit from the start until I couldn't take it any longer, and I really like the current style here)... anyway...
Here's an idea: Don't allow people to up-vote on ANYTHING (stories or comments) until they get a karma of 25.
I'd like people to take note of the not complaining about being downvoted item. Though it only applies to the discussion of downvoting in general by extension, I'd really rather not see another thread about the evils of the downvote button. If fear of karma loss stops you from voicing an unpopular opinion then I'd rather not hear from you.
I think the majority of people disagree (in face to face communications). Although passive aggressive is not good, its far more common to behave that way face to face then outright aggression.
And the guidelines talk about making it more like face to face and less like traditional online forums.
I think a culture where people aggressively argue their views is better. But, people need to not identify too much with their ideas. They need to be able to say "switch" and start arguing the other side with the same intensity. But that intensity is going to be the difference between good and great.
And I'm fine with the majority of people disagreeing with me. The majority of people are idiots happy with good enough. :)
>I think a culture where people aggressively argue their views is better.
I disagree (but I upmodded you).
>But, people need to not identify too much with their ideas. They need to be able to say "switch" and start arguing the other side with the same intensity.
Yes - that is informed debate - but I don't think that is what people are arguing against - its more the silly stuff that every other forum ever created seems to degrade to.
>The majority of people are idiots happy with good enough. :)
Well thats just mean ;) And certainly not something you would say to a "happy idiot" in person. Not if you want to achieve anything other then a punch in the face anyway ;)
would have more effect if written by PG or nickb, instead a person who has 12 karma and created their account an hour ago. I'm not saying this community doesn't need a refresher in discipline but who is this guy to give it.