This is an interesting stance to take on HN, of all places. "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."
This extends to other places, too.
On a more practical level, not being kind doesn't buy you anything. (I want to be clear here that "kindness" doesn't mean "freedom from consequences". Of course there should be consequences. But there's no need to be a jerk about administering them - it achieves nothing)
> This is an interesting stance to take on HN, of all places.
I am not talking about internet forum discussions in which the default assumption is that all participants are having the discussion in good faith. I am talking about what the response should be to a scientist who wilfully violates the norms that are required of all science if science is to be reliable and trustworthy.
The closest analogy in the context of an internet forum would be how a forum moderator should deal with a participant who wilfully violates the norms that are required to have a useful, good faith discussion. We normally call these people "trolls", and for ordinary participants the best thing to do is usually to ignore them, but a moderator has to maintain the forum's signal to noise ratio, which at some point is going to mean shutting the troll down, and doing it visibly and publicly, so that the norms of the forum can be seen to be enforced. Kindness would not be appropriate in that situation either (although since the situation is not as serious as a scientist wilfully violating the norms of science, one would not expect the response to be as vehement either).
> Of course there should be consequences. But there's no need to be a jerk about administering them
Publicly enforcing norms that are required for an institution to function, and making it explicit that that is what you are doing, in language that reflects the seriousness of the violation, is not "being a jerk". Granted, it's also not being kind. But "kind" and "jerk" are not the only available options.
Basic civility, respect and decorum go a lot further than mere "kindness" IME. The latter I can't even properly define in the context of a computer-mediated debate. I suppose it's largely a way of saying "don't personally attack other users, or you'll get booted" which ought to be plain common sense.
As I see it, being kind means being empathetic, asking ourselves how the other person is going to feel when receiving our communication, and therefore adjusting in a way to avoid emotional damage. I believe this is especially important when being critical. The goal of a criticism should be to help the other/the community/the discourse grow, keeping our ego out of the equation.
Agree. Expanding on ‘emotional damage’ - I’d say principally this would be softening the blow by not putting someone’s sense of who they are/sense of worth under threat.
Failing that, you get one of two counterproductive effects:
a) They feel a compulsive need to deny the threat and defend against it, doing something dumb or unwarranted as a result.
b) They lose that sense of worth, and become impotent. Recovery from this depends on their environment and ability to build themselves back up.
That said, if you’re too ‘nice’, there’s a chance you’re being too subtle and the message doesn’t get through.
Oh, I agree for sure that we shouldn't taunt or bait other users, in ways that would hurt them emotionally and tempt them to attack in turn. That's just as bad as an overt attack - it destroys the spirit of a robust debate. But this all falls under a proper understanding of respect and decorum, at least as far as I'm concerned. These words just feel more precise and accurate when referencing these things. Which helps making the norm stick.
All the more reason for the self reflection that went into that document ;-). I think these days, he pretty much follows it, at least in written communications. In person he used to get upset easily, which could lead to unkindness. I don't know if he is still like that, N years later.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the author was a hypocrite.
I just meant, even if he was a hypocrite, that wouldn't necessarily undermine the text. A world class coach doesn't have to be a world class athlete. Or someone not practicing what they preach doesn't necessarily invalidate what they preach.
This extends to other places, too.
On a more practical level, not being kind doesn't buy you anything. (I want to be clear here that "kindness" doesn't mean "freedom from consequences". Of course there should be consequences. But there's no need to be a jerk about administering them - it achieves nothing)