This whole anti-"negativity" thing is just an attempt to impose Bay Area passive-aggressive culture on every participant in the discussion, even though we "in tech" come from (and ought to come from) all over the world.
It makes me fucking sick that people get downvoted for expressing unpleasant but completely accurate accounts of what is actually going on.
I think you're making an enormous intellectual leap from the data you have (someone with greater than 500 karma clicked a glyph of an inverted pyramid).
api's answer is the most complete response to the question so far.
Not really, api's comment is currently one of the last in this thread, which means that it has a low karma. On the other hand, it is likely that several people upvoted it - I did, and probably people who complain that it was downvoted also upvoted it, which means that it got several downvote - something not attributable to bad luck.
When I made that comment, there were 3 others in the thread. Next time I'll put a timestamp to add context (I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely recognized the ambiguity)
Curious: how does one discuss negative things without negativity?
Oops... missed a dose of Soma.
You're absolutely right. It's also a way of prohibiting criticism, since it's sort of hard to criticize without... umm... criticizing. I noticed that the policy came into effect after the bizarre "let's regulate CS to prevent killer AI" paranoid psychotic episode that seized this community a few months ago. People criticized that rather sharply, and a number of the recipients of that criticism were very high ranking members of the community.
(I still puzzle about that one. I could forgive such a meme for coming from the Internet's more kooky corners like rense.com but from a site full of people who actually understand such things? I still can't discount the Machiavellian idea that it was a trial balloon for pushing for measures that would deliver a monopoly on high-end CS research to highly funded companies and VC-backed startups.)
Culturally the Bay Area is at least as aggressive as New York, but it's covered with a gloss of hippie veneer appropriated from the counterculture and a lot of politically correct schmaltz. The result is absolutely passive-aggressive. In New York they say 'fuck you,' stab you in the back, and cut you out. In the Bay Area they do the same but with a positive attitude, a talk about seeing the big picture, and well wishes as they send you on your way.
It's also the only place a hyper-elitist top-ten university club of >95% white/asian males could pretend to be a force for diversity, equality, and cultural progress.
I kinda like SoCal. It's also as aggressive as New York. It has a veneer of its own too, but a significantly more transparent one. But the biggest thing I love about LA in particular is that it's a place where the brilliantly intelligent pretend to be stupid. I saw a SpaceX webcast once with this girl who was like ohmygod a rocket scientist. She was even blonde. Like ohmygod here let me show you the, like, importance of the Oberth Effect and why the second stage needs higher specific impulse. The Bay Area is the other way around, which I find irritating... really stupid stuff masquerading as genius. "Here, I'm a 4.0 white male Stanford graduate. Let me show you how I'm changing the world with my app for finding the nearest fried chicken franchise..."
BTW: click on my username and drop me an e-mail @michaelochurch -- if you are in the bay we will need to share a coffee or a beer next time I am up there.
Edit: LOL, got down voted in like five minutes, and on a mostly deserted thread! Is someone running a bot for this?
> how does one discuss negative things without negativity?
Of course there's no rule against negativity on HN. That would be stupid. There's a rule against gratuitous negativity, which is different. That isn't because of any particular thread (we pondered it for a year before we introduced it) or criticism of "high-ranking members". We don't care about that. We care about the quality of discussion on Hacker News. Trying to keep the bottom from falling out on a public forum is harder than it perhaps sounds.
We need some way of making a distinction between negative statements that are civil and substantive, and negative statements that add toxicity to the community. If you can think of a better way to make that distinction, I'd love to hear about it. In the meantime, I doubt that anyone making a good-faith effort to follow this rule is likely to run into trouble on HN.