[anotherthrow]

Well, one of HN's aims is to avoid the eternal september that is very much affecting reddit at the moment. Given that, superfluous jabs at reddit might actually be effective in maintaining a barrier between the communities, or at least strongly remind people of the very specific conversational norms which apply here.

Although I started using HN a while ago, I would definitely count myself as someone who uses HN to get interesting stories after going through digg and then reddit (and I'm sure there are a lot of us here) but I'm strongly aware of the particular rules here and do find myself making more of an effort to converse in good faith / be less snarky.

[jasonlotito]

Your comment is beside the point. The issue isn't the quality of the comment the "This isn't reddit" comment is in reply to. Rather, it's the "This isn't Reddit" comment itself. Unless things have changed, you cannot upvote or downvote a post you reply to, or that replies to you (at least, your vote doesn't count). Replying means you are doing nothing more than calling attention to the comment.

If the comment is not worthy of being on HN, then it's also reasonable to conclude that most comments it sparks will be of equal or lesser value. Read that part again.

Understand that if a comment sparks intelligent discussion, it's generally a good comment. And comments that spark intelligent discussion should be supported.

So, either you are part of the problem, or you are wrong, by posting "This isn't Reddit. Please keep on topic." comments. The best solution? Vote accordingly and contribute.

[anotherthrow]

I can't see that your argument engages with anything I've said. I've spelt out a plausible mechanism by which some comments would add value to the community (by preventing deterioration of standards of discourse). If you want to say otherwise, you'll have to take issue with that argument. As it stands, you've not done so.

Regarding this:

> If the comment is not worthy of being on HN, then it's also reasonable to conclude that most comments it sparks will be of equal or lesser value.

I don't see any reason to accept it, but even if it did we're talking about a specific subset of responses, and so I've presented an argument for why that subset would add value. This is not inconsistent with the general claim, and so your general claim does not do much in the way of response - it is beside the point.

Finally, 'adding value' is more than just 'sparking valuable comments'. Comments can add value without sparking valuable comments by, e.g. re-enforcing valuable community norms.

[DanBC]

> If you want to say otherwise, you'll have to take issue with that argument.

Meta is death. Some meta discussion can be interesting and lead to useful discussion, but in general meta discussion sucks.

Imagine a content free meme-spew post.

Either it gets downvoted by the community (down vote ability appears after 500, maybe 750, maybe higher karma), and the poster knows what they did wrong.

Or it gets downvoted and the baffled new user asks why, and someone then posts "TINR; but here's our guidelines so that's why you got the downvotes". I'd suggest that the TINR in this case is useless, and the rest of the post is of dubious value. If a person is unable to grok the style of HN from the faqs and existing posts without someone having to handhold them then maybe they need to lurk more. But at least it's welcoming and helping people become productive. Notice that this is a tiny subset of TINR posts.

Imagine the content-free post gets a TINR comment before it gets a downvote. It antagonises other communities, it adds no value to the thread, it makes people think that TINR posts are acceptable, it clutters threads, it encourages meta-discussion, etc.

[jasonlotito]

> I can't see that your argument engages with anything I've said.

The GP remarked that comments that amounted to "This isn't Reddit. Please keep on topic." (TIR) are worthless. You disagreed, and tried to explain why by suggesting that these comments discourage people from commenting.

My assertion is that not only does this not work within the system of HN, but that the TIR comment itself is of equal or less quality to that of the comment it's in reply to.

> I've spelt out a plausible mechanism by which some comments would add value to the community (by preventing deterioration of standards of discourse).

Yes: discouragement through an off-topic comment that contributes nothing to the discussion. By replying, your vote does not count (should up or downvote), and you also highlight the discussion. In essence, rather than using the existing tools and protocol of HN (voting or flagging, ignoring trolls, and contributing posts that add to the discussion), your simply adding a TIR post.

You've made this claim (thought without specifying why it's superior to the existing methods), and yet ignored the simple fact that a TIR post is just as bad, if not worse, then the post it replies to. At the very least, the post it replies to is at least, usually, on topic (Topicality is, of course, not the sole contributing factor to whether a comment is worthwhile).

> If you want to say otherwise, you'll have to take issue with that argument. As it stands, you've not done so.

Your inability to understand, or simply your attempt to dismiss my argument, does not negate my argument. It's clear to any reasonable person the arguments I made. If you are interested in an actual discussion, make an attempt. Otherwise, you just come off as a troll. Judging by your profile (which does matter, considering the nature of this discussion), I wouldn't be surprised.

> I don't see any reason to accept it, but even if it did we're talking about a specific subset of responses, and so I've presented an argument for why that subset would add value.

You've done so while ignoring the harm that the a TIR reply causes. Maybe you aren't aware of the ability to upvote and downvote (I forget the threshold for those features), or flagging. This is highlighted by your final comment:

> Finally, 'adding value' is more than just 'sparking valuable comments'. Comments can add value without sparking valuable comments by, e.g. re-enforcing valuable community norms.

Yes. Adding value is more than just sparking valuable commentary or discussion. What you fail to grasp is that your support of TIR is in direct contrast to valued community norms. We have tools (upvotes, downvotes, and flagging) to handle these issues already. A TIR does not enforce these norms, and in fact, flies in the face of what the community wishes to be.

These are outlined here:

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The two that are important to this discussion are here:

"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."

And:

"If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)"

TIR very much falls into both those categories. Submissions are not just news stories, but comments as well. If something is worth of a TIR comment, it also means you should just flag it.

Yes, public shaming (what TIR amounts to) can be effective in other environments. HN chooses not to work that way. It's what makes the community so mature and effective.

[anotherthrow]

Look, here's the disagreement:

>You've made this claim (thought without specifying why it's superior to the existing methods), and yet ignored the simple fact that a TIR post is just as bad, if not worse, then the post it replies to. At the very least, the post it replies to is at least, usually, on topic (Topicality is, of course, not the sole contributing factor to whether a comment is worthwhile).

I'm not ignoring that fact - it's just that I haven't accepted it. I agree that TIR posts do not derive value from adding valuable on-topic content. But I've suggested a way for them to derive value from another source. Given that, I don't accept the claim that they are just as bad as the posts they reply to. I thought (and still do) that the argument you were offering takes that as a premise. That's the point I made in the last comment, and I took it to be sufficient to show why your argument doesn't go through. I'm very much happy to be corrected if that's not the argument you had in mind.

The point about using existing tools/protocols is a different argument, and I think a good one. However, it doesn't bear on whether TIR posts are in themselves valuable or not - it only bears on the comparative value they have. Evaluation of that argument would require more knowledge than I have of the efficacy of different ways online communities enforce norms. Re the other points - I think there are interesting things to say about them, but I suspect that would take us off the central disagreement. I am however familiar with the other points about comment policy and downvotes etc... - I've used HN far longer than I've had this account. Whilst we're on issues of civility, I would say that suggesting comments come off as trolling, claiming people 'don't grasp' (which can mean 'don't understand'), and judging them on two sentence profiles don’t seem to me very useful. I was slightly brusque in claiming your comment was 'beside the point' - but did so to echo your comment.

I think I should point out that I don't commit to the claim that TIR posts actually are valuable - I just think it's plausible that they are.

[jasonlotito]

> I think I should point out that I don't commit to the claim that TIR posts actually are valuable - I just think it's plausible that they are.

Not in this community, which is the context we are discussing this in, after all. Given the other tools available, and given what is valued here, TIR are no better then the comments they reply to. Something you seem to be ignoring is value. Value in terms of respect, and of time, both yours, and others.

A TIR post is not respectful. It's used as an insult. It's an open insults. Given that their are other, more effective means to communicate disapproval, and that be replying, you are removing those means from your arsenal, it's clear that your intent is merely to insult.

A TIR is not respectful to others. By highlighting the post with further discussion, it wastes others time. Not only are you not operating to remove the parent comment from the discussion, but you are asking people to read your comment in reply, and to judge the merits of what is now a discussion. See, if the TIR post is left as is, then I must read the parent in order to understand context. If the TIR post is left as is, it's also a symbol that the comment is a good comment, and worthy of reading.

Do not confuse the intended goal of a TIR. I agree, the intent is good. But even if it accomplishes it's goal of having the parent retract his statement, it does so in a manner that is immature and rude. Being able to bully people into a position is not valuable.

I guess we'll continue to disagree on it's value. That being said, HN has it's policies, and I tend to agree with them, and will continue to down vote both TIR posts and the posts they reply to.

[anotherthrow]

Well, we can probably agree on downvoting them, even if we don't agree on their value (I don't think I'm ignore value - I just think there are more potential sources of it)! - the faq does ask people to refrain from posting them, and I feel duty bound by the requests of the site owner.