[lma22]

I'll speak to comments mores than posts.

Good HN is sourced, maturely explained viewpoints, that have "meat" to them. "Meat" being a thesis and supportive dialog. Or, at minimum, personal experiences that enhance the discussion at hand.

Bad HN is puns, harsh politics, humor, and dismissive language. Examples: "Nah, [my subjective viewpoint]", "correlation is not causation", "I feel attacked", etc. These comments clutter the comment section, add nothing to the discussion, and brings HN down ten pegs. It also invites those in who want to chat without understanding the topics and/or reading the articles. Reddit is a prime example of this.

[gitgud]

Another Good one is respect. We can agree/disagree, discuss or rant, but if there's no respect for the others involved... HN falls apart.

Personally, I can be obnoxious at times. But respecting others' comments, helps create a welcoming and open place, which is what makes Hacker News a great place.

[rl3]

>Bad HN is puns, harsh politics, humor, and dismissive language.

I think humor has a place on HN, so long as it's used sparingly while remaining highbrow and relevant to the discussion at hand.

As a budding HN comedian, it's taken years to learn how to play to such a tough crowd. Nowadays I just get weird looks whenever I explain that my dislike of tomatoes stems from the fact that they taste the same as downvotes.

[krapp]

Bad HN is also cheap rhetorical tricks, pseudo-intellectual quotes and thought-terminating cliches. Too many people here seem to want to score points in an imaginary game against a straw opponent and show off their galaxy-brain wit rather than actually talk to people.

I'd rather have a hundred more lame attempts at humor than another comment referencing 1984, Brave New World or the American founding fathers (likely entirely out of context) as if it were profound.