[dang]

It's because comments can have troll effects even when they're downvoted or flagged.

There's a difference between expressing a view and setting this place on fire. There's no view that can't be expressed substantively and thoughtfully if one has a mind to, but it takes work. Throwing fuel on the fire or sand in the gears is different; that's vandalism, and it destroys the free exchange of views by ruining the container—the community and site—that supports it. The container is fragile and needs protecting.

People mostly do this without realizing how destructive it is. Dealing with it requires moderators whose role is to protect the commons. That's how HN still exists as a place for (hopefully) thoughtful discussion. We'll never all agree about where to draw the line every time, but that's secondary to the point that someone needs to.

A comment crosses into trolling when it does things that are known to ruin thoughtful discussion, whether that is the intent or not. I chided the commenter upthread because they were going much further than merely (say) arguing against a rush to judgment about the OP—they were signalling bad faith with polemical swipes (e.g. 'Your prejudice that in general, "men are pigs"'). That is not thoughtful discussion, it's destructive of it.

When we ask commenters not to do this, reactions vary. Some react by taking responsibility and learn how not to produce such effects in online conversation. Many HN users have gone through that process. I had to go through it myself (it took years); I used to optimize for snark and venting too as much as the next person. If HN has anything superb about it, to use your word, it's because of the community members who do this work.

Other commenters prefer melodrama. They proclaim they're being 'censored' for their 'unpopular opinions' by mods who 'can't handle the truth', then storm out the front door with an 'enjoy your circlejerk' or two. (Typically they then walk around the building, come back in and start over with a new account.) This is the 'help help I'm being repressed' phase of the internet cycle of life. It will never go way, but I'm confident that most neutral readers notice the same signs of bad faith that mods were reacting to. How do I know that? Because otherwise our job would be impossible.

In the end the root distinction isn't about what view a commenter has on this or that topic, it's the difference between users who comment with care for the whole and those who don't. Sometimes that's because they're so agitated that they lack the self-control to do anything other than toss a hot potato into the thread. (It happens to everyone.) But often it's just that they haven't yet learned about this dynamic and why it matters. Once somebody gets that, they're motivated to participate in the community quite differently—but it isn't a question of changing their views, becoming more 'conformist' or 'groupthink' or any of that sort of thing people say. It's more akin to not littering in a city park, or to taking good care of a campsite.

[grandalf]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think that depending on which stories on HN one choose to read, the community may feel entirely different. I think I'm lucky that for the most part the stories I read attract high quality comments.

The two topics I enjoy which are continually controversial are the "Russian Hacking" story and stories about Wikileaks. Wikileaks has been an interest for many HN readers for years, and so it's interesting to see how recent events have created political polarization where none existed before.

I've noticed that some users will use the tactic of shaming to try to make a point in a discussion. It's hard to describe this, but it's much more like the sort of comments one finds in other discussion fora than what is typically found on HN. Politics brings these out, yet I would be very disappointed if political topics were discouraged on HN, since political ideas and participation are an important part of citizenship and community. And it may take the sort of retort one would get on HN to break someone out of a lazy "comfort zone" belief that they hold simply because it's popular.

Thanks for your efforts moderating, I know it is a thankless duty, but your comment makes me realize that there are likely threads that I don't participate in which get much worse.

[nickrivadeneira]

That makes sense and I appreciate the thoughtful response. The one thing I'd say is that it seems like those types of comments tend to be accepted as long as they align with popular opinion around here. Snark and polemical swipes (I had to Google "polemical" :D) seem to be fairly common. It's understandable - it's difficult to see bad faith when the message is agreeable. It'd be pretty easy to pick out comments in this discussion that align with popular opinion, have a similar tone to anothercomment's, but are unmoderated. Being more lenient on "agreeable trolling" has just as much of a destructive effect and reinforces echo chambers.

[dang]

People have differing perceptions of 'popular opinion' and read the same comments differently depending on their pre-existing opinions. Even perfectly even-handed moderation would routinely be accused of bias because most such perceptions are in the eye of the beholder.

To my mind, the price of admission into a serious conversation about this is some awareness of how prevalent these biases are, including in one's own case. They determine nearly everything. Mostly all we really think is "what I like is good, what I dislike is bad, and others are good or bad to the extent that they agree". That goes along with "I'm a noble freethinker nobly standing apart from this groupthink echo chamber" and the associated, "You should moderate this forum to defend those I agree with and smite those I disagree with." These feelings are so compelling that it's hard to wriggle into any freedom from them. One should make the effort anyhow. People who make that effort start to see the problem differently, even as we all retain our biases.

There are many counterintuitive aspects to this. One is that community cohesion remains an issue even when 'popular opinion' (assuming it exists and you know what it is) is wrong. There are ways of disputing popular opinion that cause harm even when they're right; it isn't a simple matter of just 'stating the unpopular truth' (assuming it exists and you know what it is) and then lording it over or angrily lashing out at those who 'can't handle it'. You actually have a greater responsibility by virtue of the fact that you know, or believe you know, more truth. Most people who fancy themselves to be expressing an unpopular truth don't take that responsibility—on the contrary, they use that truth as a weapon, to vent grievances, gain status, and so on. This harms discussion and community even if you are right about both popular opinion and the truth. Indeed, it does more harm the more right you are, because then you're discrediting the truth with your behavior and gifting the majority with an easy excuse to keep rejecting the minority view.

[19eightyfour]

Underrated comment.

[tripzilch]

The commenter probably meant to say "enjoy your circle-jerking effect" ... :) Because it's the effect that they care about ... notice how silly that sounds, while not really effectively communicating, instead just getting your hairs up a little (maybe).

For the record, I don't agree with that commenter's opinion. And I also believe your actions on these moderation issues are well-intended (plus you're doing a great job, probably especially on the invisible parts, kudos).

But for all the talk about not throwing oil on the fire, maybe it's smart if you then also refrain from calling people "trolls" or "trolling" when they're not intentionally doing so. To use your words, it signals bad faith. Especially if you consider that such a person is probably in a bad or angry mood[0].

In fact, I don't think "trolling effect" is a very good term to use either. That's probably because I carry a sort of romantic idea about my dealings advanced and skilled trolls. Similar to how many people here feel about the term "hacker". Yes there exist criminal hackers, just like there exist mentally insane unstable bad evil trolls. But there are also performance artists[1], or you know, memetic/social hackers. Still not always good, and almost never welcome. They can use their eristic skills to make stuck up people lose face and/or their shit. They can bring to light collective hypocrisy by placing a very careful wedge in a community. Same reasons we need comedy, satire or jesters. Or just cause a scene for the art of it. If they wanted to, they could "set this place on fire" without snark, polemic or even knowing it was them that caused someone else to push a button and whoooommff.

Just like you don't call someone who steals your USB-stick a "hacker" but a "thief", someone who uses polemic swipes and snark because they angrily voice an unpopular opinion on HN, is not (necessarily) a troll. And to them it comes across as if you're just calling them names, which does not create listeners.

Just call it what it is. The "trolling effects" you talk about have a proper word actually, and are called "flame wars". Even better would be if you'd take some of the well-worded snippets from your post above (and possibly previous ones), for copy-pasting the relevant bits, because well it's not really more than about five typical situations on HN, is it?

Since you want to affect this person's behaviour, it helps to be specific, instead of using a catch-all term like "trolling". Pointing out "snark" and "polemic swipes" apply in this case, because that's undeniable and you can quote the words. Calling it "signalling bad faith" is a very bad idea for hopefully obvious reasons[2].

Finally, about your last paragraph. Of course you don't want conformist groupthink either. But just like the so-called "troll", your intentions may not line up with what effects you're causing. Depending on how carefully you tread, you may in fact be inciting groupthink, and ironically this attracts (proper) trolls because they love poking that kind of self-assuredness.

[0] often unrelated stress, but triggered on subjects they feel strongly about--I get this myself as well, but I usually manage to write such words in a textfile, that I keep in a very private very angry folder somewhere (throwing away the vitriol is less cathartic to me, and sometimes there's some useful eloquent bits that come in useful at a calmer moment).

[1] still not welcome here on HN, which I understand, but more for the same reasons why reddit-style pun-threads are not welcome here either.

[2] Because (especially in their eyes) they could say the same about you. Also snark and polemic swipes seem to be called out a lot more consistently when it involves "unpopular opinions on HN" (which exist), I notice this myself, even though I strongly oppose most of these unpopular opinions. And that, by itself, can in fact be considered quite rightly as signalling bad faith. So take care.