[dxdm]

I don't think that the rule should regularly be broken. That's not what they say, and it's not what they mean. The strongest interpretation is: err on the side of not acting surprised at people's questions, because it tends to put people off asking them.

I do think you're simply reading their rule in a way that's not intended by them. Could the rule be written to convey the intent more clearly? Yes, I think so. Is it only their own responsibility how the rule is interpreted? No, I don't think so.

The hacker news guidelines ask us to:

> respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

This is good advice in general. It is your choice to pick an the interpretation that you disagree with the strongest, and subsequently use it to condemn them: "puts me off entirely", "no room for nuance", and (paraphrasing:) it's on them to prevent me from interpreting the rule in the most severe way.

No. The spirit of the rule is clear. The nuance is there. What you do with it, that is all you.

[zahlman]

> I do think you're simply reading their rule in a way that's not intended by them.

I share a similar apprehension, although it's hard to put into words exactly. Across the entire document, really. Like, it's clearly well intended, and not too bad of a match for things I would advocate myself. But at the same time it's suggestive of an impossibly high standard, and I have trauma from seeing "standards that can be interpreted as impossibly high" being applied inconsistently.

Especially the concept of "no subtle -isms": too often have I seen one side of a discussion accused of "-isms" they couldn't understand, while "-isms" they found more sympathetic/obvious went unnoticed. (That's, er, tangentially related to how I ended up making an account here in the first place.)

[nchmy]

Yes, agreed. The document is dripping with red flags - I only called out the surprise rule, but could have criticized the rest.

It may very well be a wonderful environment there, but I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if people get accused of improper behaviour that either didn't even happen, or the vast majority of the world would be perfectly in support of.

[dxdm]

I understand the apprehension, and I agree that rules should be as clear as possible and not be applied inconsistently. Hoewever, I take exception to the suggestion that the mere existence of a rule means that it will be applied wrong.

There is a difference between saying "I worry that these rules are too open for interpretation" and "these rules only pretend to be sensible and fair, they are clearly intended as weapons made in bad faith, the jury is rigged and I will not even consider any other interpretation". The first point is open and constructive, the other rejects other perspectives outright and dismisses the possibility of understanding and compromise. You're making the first point; the comments I replied to above seem essentially to be doing the latter, and that's what I'm arguing against.

I don't really see a difference between applying maximalist intepretations of rules to treat people unfairly on the one hand, or on the other, using maximalist interpretations of rules to dismiss good-faith rules _a priori_, that is, to use a certain reading of rules to accuse people of conspiring to use them in a certain way. How on earth are you going to make any rule that is immune to either?

In fact, I think both are the exact indentical failure to not be a dick, by the same method, just approached from opposing sides. They're born of the same inflexibility, the same uwillingness to extend other people some credit, and I do not envy anyone who has to deal with either of them as a result of trying to bring people together for some common good.

[zahlman]

> Hoewever, I take exception to the suggestion that the mere existence of a rule means that it will be applied wrong.

I won't speak for nchmy, but I didn't intend to suggest that.

[nchmy]

Agreed - the rule does not say, nor do they mean that the rule should be broken regularly. I was saying that because it is true, because it's not a good rule as written.

Once again, I'm reading (and quoting!) the rules exactly as wrttien by them.

> it doesn’t matter whether they’re pretending to be surprised or actually surprised

Moreover, like the sibling to this comment, I take exception to the entire document but didn't bother to expound on the rest.

Another particularly concerning excerpt

> You should not be afraid of breaking a social rule. These are things that everyone does, and breaking one doesn’t make you a bad person. If someone says, "hey, you just feigned surprise," or "that’s subtly sexist," don’t worry. Just apologize, reflect for a second, and move on.

Once again, no room for nuance, discussion etc. If someone concludes that you've broken a rule, shut up and apologize. Don't dare ask how/why, let alone disagree and try to start a discussion about the topic.

This is an environment in which professional victims/sociopaths could thrive. I've been baselessly accused many times of racism and sexism in places like this, which is not only laughable if you knew the context, but the other parties are the ones who weaponize their false victimhood in order to be sexist and racist (and corrupt).

It may very well be a wonderful environment there. But the rules, as written, seem like they're better suited to some sort of trauma-recovery facility, where everyone is enormously fragile and it is therefore extremely prudent to err egregiously on the side of "safety". But that, of course, is by definition not a healthy environment.

Once again, it would be simple to re-write or, perhaps better, replace the rules such that you don't need such ambiguity, nuance, explanations, debate etc... I already did it for one. Another such modification would just be a simple "no politics or religion" rule, which is common in hostels worldwide. Instead the opt-in rule for such topics just invites a mess.

They evidently want the rules to be as they are at this point.

[dxdm]

(I replied to the sister comment to yours, because it was there first, but it's essentially a reply to you, as well.)