In each case nothing I'd ever said would be considered trolling by any rational observer. Here on HN, however, as with most communities where you start to recognize the regulars (tptacek, raganwald, etc), "trolling" is redefined to simply mean "going against the grain".

There was one discussion that I participated where I predicted that Apple would see declining profit margins due to increased competition. Remarkably this completely benign, seemingly obvious observation saw me declared a troll, and shortly thereafter yet another account was hellbanned from HN (whatever the mechanism -- is this the verdict of a bored PG, or has he anointed some particularly under-employed members to apply it? -- it is horribly broken).

Troll is, more often than not, a term used to circle the wagons.

I couldn't stop naive newbies from making dumb comments, but I could stop fanboyism and groupthink.

I decided that I was going to take a different approach to commenting. In essence, I wanted to be like DHH - highly opinionated, strongly worded, and unafraid to call people out. To ensure comment integrity, I stuck only to topics in which I strongly felt I was in the right.

patio11, joshu, tptacek and pg were some of the people I spoke out against. I made the argument that those people were flat-out wrong. But not just that, I clarified -why- they were wrong in a reasoned way. And that was the key - explaining why. It turns out that people DID care about the truth. People WERE willing to hear out an alternate view and they voted with their upvotes.

I was able to move my karma from 3.5k to 5k and move my average from 7 to 14 per comment. Many of my comments took a very contrarian view to the HN status quo. Many of them were directly targeted at the "HN elite". All of them took their share of downvotes from those who thought my comments didn't add value. But in the end, they were the most successful comments I've ever made.

So don't lose hope! There is a way out of groupthink. But it takes hard work, great communication, and an academic view of persuasion. In the end, I think reasoned and rational discussion is what makes HN great, let's get back to that.

I turned on "showdead" and looked through the posting history of users with dead posts. About a quarter of the time, I would have disagreed with the hellbanning.

If you're going to ban a user, you might as well be honest and tell them up front.

It's also possible to track down contact information for most HN users, either via "about" or Google. I have notified several hellbanned people who were (now) making useful contributions to HN. After all, if people have learned to behave they should be encouraged to participate. (Of course, some people are spammers or incorrigible, see e.g. "los etho s" without spaces.)

The really screwed up thing is that I've looked through the comment and submission histories of obvious spammers and I saw a guy with about 132 spam submissions with an account about as old as mine (almost 200 days) and his account wasn't banned. It seems that you can disagree around here but only to a point.

I get that maybe some are afraid of diluting the community but by being so overly sensitive you can really be doing everyone a disservice. Lately I feel like I have to watch out for the karma police. The guys who downvote anything that disagrees too much even if it's totally rational and put in as nice of terms as possible. And despite protests from the "in" crowd it really does seem like what they say gets auto-up voted. Experiments be damned, that reputation and age of any one profile really can make or break you.

Here's an experiment I'd like to see:

Pg, patio11, edw, reagawald, and the others all make new profiles and about commenting as always while not letting slip who they really are. Then let's see if their karma and average end up climbing at their usual rate.

Continuing from this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3354448

I'm not even sure if I get the point of trying either. I mean, I believe I have provided at least some value to HN, but every time I've "been unafraid to call people out", all I got was a bunch of crap for it.

Although you say we shouldn't lose hope, I think I already have. Its frustrating to have to deal with people claiming everything is the next new previous thing or the new black or the new white or the new Apple or the new Google or whatever else meme you can think of it.

I find startups intriguing, I like deeply scientific and mathematical discussions, I like hearing about stuff going on in the open source world. You'd think HN would be my thing, but there are simply elements of the HN community that rub me the wrong way and no matter how much you try to stop them, no matter how many times you down vote them, they just keep coming back stronger than before.

Honestly, there are just some people here who'd be happier over at 4chan than here, and I wish they'd just go.

BTW, I expect to get downvoted for this, and I don't care. I don't sugar coat the truth, and I'm sure as hell not going to start now.

There is no clear cut definition. Although, if you're asking the question if you should be here the answer is implied to be yes since you bothered to ask the question in the first place.

I have a different style (I think I don't ever f-bomb in online comments) but your manner of making comments is food for thought, especially on issues where what I've learned in more than five decades of life experience leads to different conclusions from the majority opinion here on HN.

The first comment prior to this one on your comments feed starts of with: "Your entire comment is bullshit and it pisses me off. You've never worked at Zynga, so to purport that you know exactly what it's like to work there is bullshit. Your comment reflects exactly what Silicon Valley nerds think of Zynga externally. They think that Zynga is nothing but people refining skinner boxes for people to play in. You've probably seen one or two talks of Mark Pincus talking about "doing every dirty trick in the book" or something like that. Have you ever met him? Do you even know the last time he worked directly on a game? You're allowed to have whatever opinion you like, but this opinion is bullshit. Your entire comment is ridiculously biased and unreflective of Zynga internally or externally."

This part of your response is mostly a characterization of the commentator based on your own speculation about whether he's worked at Zynga or met Mark Pincus. While strictly speaking you're only characterizing the comment, this comes off as a personal attack to me.

Meanwhile, other people have been hell banned for linking to wikipedia pages defending scientific facts, because those facts go against the dominant ideology on hacker news (or that of the people with their finger on the ban button.)

I'm tired of hearing the refrain that reason and rationality rule the day here, when it seems pretty clear to me that if you're a liberal, an apple hater, an open source advocate who opposes property rights, you get a free pass for personal insults, but if you're none of those things, no matter how reasoned or rational you are, you risk being hellbanned.

I try to restrict myself only to commenting on safe subjects for that reason. I'm actually worried that disagreeing with you will result in me getting hellbanned. That's not the kind of environment where "reasoned and rational discussion" are really going to flourish.

My last comment isn't my greatest accomplishment. I'd hope that my behavior would be looked at in whole, instead of cherrypicked.

That being said, I was characterizing the general feeling of HN as a whole. Of the 100k+ readership of HN, very few are actual Zynga employees. So in that light, I defend my comment. There is a large anti-Zynga sentiment on HN and that sentiment is driven by media-fueled propaganda.

I can't account for why others have been hell-banned or downvoted. But from my experience being very contrarian in my own way, I haven't seen that at all. In fact, I've seen the exact opposite.

I'm curious--can you paste the text of that comment here if you still have it? It's possible that, for example, it was your tone that got you downvoted, not your message. Or it could have been the community perceiving you to be ignoring evidence, or any number of other things. In any case, this claim here isn't sufficient for us to judge the fairness of the response.

FWIW I do NOT think people should downvote based on disagreement. I think downvotes should be sparsely used and I personally upvote even people I disagree with.

I've seen people (that otherwise posted useful contributions, before and after) hellbanned for making a rather tasteless joke. The joke was sufficiently tasteless that I can totally see a moderator suspending or even banning that user. But not hellbanning. Not that it's strictly worse or anything, it's just so utterly useless and childish.

This user had no idea that anything had happened, and he just kept posting for weeks. All that wasted time! And I'm fairly sure that if a moderator would have just told him "hey we'd rather not have people make jokes about dead children here" the guy would have replied "right, my bad that was out of line, won't happen again" cause the rest of his comments didn't seem very inflammatory or anything.

Instead the guy gets no message at all and keeps on posting invisibly. A regular ban would have at least sent some message.

... and then there's these things I've heard about people getting temporary hellbans? So people can come back all butthurt after realizing they've been tricked into invisibly wasting their time? That's the dumbest kind of moderation I've ever heard about, really. A hellban should be forever, or not at all. There is no such thing as a "hell suspension".

I'll keep lurking, at least for now.

Good luck.

http://news.ycombinator.org/threads?id=CrabDude * enable showdead in your profile to read my comments

As you can see from my comments and contributions, most are extremely well reasoned and often entirely unique and invaluable contributions to a given conversation that to my frustration were inexplicably never upvoted or commented on, without any real insight as to why. I honestly am in shock and beyond frustrated that so much of my efforts and attempts to edify and contribute have been undermined by something that is explicitly allowed in comment guidelines. [1]

Specifically, the comment that is apparently responsible for my hellban, was on a post that linked to MY NodeKnockout entry which both won the competition category and received over 60 votes to end up on the front page:

  HEY ALL! REMEMBER TO VOTE FOR US! WE'RE TRYING TO WIN THE INNOVATION CATEGORY!
  http://nodeknockout.com/teams/starcraft-2-destroyed-my-marri...
  AND RETWEET THIS WITH #nodeko! =)

  Empty comments can be ok if they're positive. There's nothing wrong with submitting a comment saying just "Thanks."

To any in YC who have control over such things, please unban my account. I would greatly prefer to use it and retain all my contributions than be forced to play wack-a-mole in response to inaccurate rule enforcement.

[1] http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps

At best this is an example of incompetence in the form of a poorly written spam detection algorithm, at worst it represents an admin's lazy disregard for the effects of "hellbanning" on a sincere community.

However, it would appear I stand corrected as I missed the following:

"Please don't use uppercase for emphasis." [1]

However, I stand by the ridiculousness of banning a sincere contributer that's bringing traffic to the site solely due to (positive constructive) ignorance of the rules.

Would you kick a guest out from your home without warning for temporarily speaking loudly in good intention, and exclude them from all future discussions? It would seem in this case HN violates their own rule regarding civility treating people online as you would in a face to face conversation, and please don't give me the excuse of this being necessary in order to deal with spambots. Such an argument defends rudeness and laziness as a better algorithm could easily be written.

[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

In the interest of full disclosure, my suspicion is that the way you expressed these opinions ran counter to the kind of discussion people want to see on HN. I may be wrong, of course, which is why I'd like to see the actual posts.

I'd be curious to get your opinion on my (just discovered) ban: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=3354475

That said, hellbans are fucking despicable. They might be the proper way to deal with spambots, but for contributing members they are as far as I am concerned incredibly unethical.

It is not obvious that increased competition leads to declining margins. Often increased competition validates the market, and increases consumer demand far more than the effect on pricing. I have seen it in my own industry, where our sales increase when a competitor launches a big ad campaign.

I think this is true by definition, after all, if the majority are trolling then it's culturally acceptable and you have 4chan.

But I think if you are being intellectually honest you need to be open to the possibility that maybe you were acting like a dick on occasion. I've dealt with heavy duty trolling before, and it's a common refrain that the admins are "fascist" and that they are simply "censoring" unpopular opinions. All the while saying things that would get their asses kicked if said in public. For the unskilled troll their behavior is obvious, but the skilled troll can make himself indistinguishable from someone who just has a mild form of digital Aspergers. Often the only goal is to piss you off and waste your time. So in the battle against trolls, detached and ruthless action is often necessary because anything else allows them to win. If there is some collateral damage because one's opinion is just too "different", probably the best thing is to move on to a different forum, or just start a blog. Then you can post your opinions and gain even more notoriety with "the regulars" possibly defending you with the backing of their mighty reputation. Witness Ted Dziuba, that cocky prick would for sure be hellbanned if he waded into HN, but he doesn't have to because everyone reads his posts directly.

Though it happens less than in other forums, wagon circling is definitely a persistent problem on HN. I believe it's only further exacerbated by the fact that downvoted comments are displayed in a difficult to read color, meaning that downvotes can effectively censor things the majority doesn't like, regardless of the merit of the argument. It's not as bad as on Reddit, where groups of people form downvote cabals to actively censor specific users or ideas, but it's still problematic.

In general, a 1-line downvoted post is downvoted for good reason. For multiline posts, it's far more often a good post that people didn't like for other reasons. Those are the ones I take steps to manually highlight and read, and then upvote if I think it was downvoted for the wrong reasons.

If you have showdead on, sometimes you'll see perfectly reasonable comments that are inexplicably dead-- this is why.

http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=3354475

Additionally I think one should draw a line between trolling and flaming. Just some "you suck" comments are not making a troll a troll.

http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

to rate how well I do in disagreeing here.

You write, Here on HN, however, as with most communities where you start to recognize the regulars (tptacek, raganwald, etc), "trolling" is redefined to simply mean "going against the grain."

I disagree with this, because I have openly disagreed at least with tptacek, and certainly with other users who have higher karma totals than I have and have been on Hacker News longer than I have, and yet I have never been hellbanned. I have seen even more open, pointed, and frequent disagreements with some of the "regulars" here from some of the other regulars, but those accounts are still alive and well. I have used the same username here, and only this one username here, during all the 1122 days since I formed my user account. To the best of my knowledge and belief, each of my posts has been visible to users since it was posted, and the majority of my comments have stayed above 0 net karma ever since they were posted.

I agree with you that expressions of opinion that disagree with the joint opinion of the most active HN participants can result in individual net downvotes of comments. Before I got here, it was declared that the site founder is okay with participants downvoting to express disagreement with comments,

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

and when I lose karma on a net basis with a particular comment, I look at how the comment was written, and think about how I could make a comment that disagrees with prevailing opinion be more persuasive the next time. (Another user who has replied to you reports experiments in doing this, and I will look at the examples found in the past comments by that user to see how it is done.) Once in a while, if an issue is important enough to me, I'll openly (and, I hope, respectfully and thoughtfully) disagree, and figure that such occasions when I burn through karma is what karma is worth accumulating for.

To sum up, I agree with the proposition that some comments here are downvoted solely to express disagreement. The art of writing comments is to figure out how to express disagreement and still appeal to disagreeing readers as a thoughtful participant in intellectual discussion. On the other hand, I don't think most users here flag comments for disagreement, but rather for blatant violation of the site guidelines. I disagree with the proposition that anyone has been hellbanned solely for posting comments that are in factual disagreement with majority opinion here. I see plenty of live accounts that manage to openly express disagreement frequently, and I possess one.

AFTER EDIT: I note, entirely with amusement, that this comment is bouncing up and down in karma score just now. Whatever, I'm just trying to point to some reasons to think about the issue differently from the opinion expressed in the parent comment. Whether you the reader agree or not is up to you.

AFTER FURTHER EDIT, RELATING TO COMMENT REPLYING TO THIS COMMENT: Thank you for your reply. I agree that it is logically correct to say that pointing to accounts that survive despite disagreement is not an airtight proof that no accounts have been hellbanned for disagreement. On the other hand, my general point is that I don't see any affirmative evidence for the extraordinary claim that this site is moderated with swift and frequent hellbanning for disagreement as a routine part of the moderation policy. I join the other users who have already said, "link, please?" to follow up statements of the nature of "In each case nothing I'd ever said would be considered trolling by any rational observer," so that we can all see just what the problem was. I had showdead on for most of 2010 and 2011, and I never felt, as I read dead posts, that users who don't see dead posts are missing much from the thousands of posts here on Hacker News. The way to get a reality check on this statement, of course, is to turn on showdead and see what dead posts look like day after day after day on a variety of subjects in a variety of threads.

This is a logical fallacy. Simply because there exist an account that hasn't been hellbanned because they express disagreement doesn't mean that other accounts aren't hellbanned for expressing disagreement.

This is one of the dumber meta-threads HN has had. Not so much your comment in particular as the whole thing.

You'd be surprised, it doesn't take much to get pg trigger-happy. He's threatened me with banning a few times myself!

Third-party apps can request READ_LOG manifest permissions and directly monitor the log, but that is an incredibly rarely used permission that tends to raise flags.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/00/11/30/1238204/stephen-king...

It's an instructive example of hubris and mis-aligned goals. Stephen wasn't interested in generating a profit. Had he raised the same revenue with half as many readers paying twice as often he would have continued the project.

Once the novelty wore off, the viability of the approach disappeared. The opt-in payment ratios started generously, and rapidly approached zero.

Little can be learned from CK's experiment because it was novel -- it got covered far and wide, encouraging a lot of people to "show" that the model works.

What can be demonstrated, empirically, is that money can be made without imposing draconian controls.

Lots of people sell videos online without the middle man. Most see no sales.

This is demonstrably false. In fact, every artist who's ever done an online release of their content without DRM has seen sales in proportion to their general popularity. We've seen this with Radiohead, with NIN, and with many other lesser artists.

In every case, the profits were roughly in line with the general popularity of the artist's content.

"Lots of people sell videos online without the middle man. Most see no sales."

And most content distributed through the various middle-man networks likewise is a failure. Most OSS software is a flop. Most commercial software is also a flop. This statement is neither surprising nor relevant.

None of this is a counterpoint to my claim. A counterpoint to my claim would be actually showing that it is novel, e.g. that this experiment contains attributes which have not been seen before.

People have produced and sold videos direct over the internet many times before, so that aspect isn't new. Is there some other aspect to this which I'm missing which is novel?

Suicide is a topic that people sometimes "take on" in a hamfisted attempt at some cheap feel-goodism, and the results are almost always counter-productive.

You can't rationalize away suicide via a blog post. More likely it will actually bring to mind something that might not have been front and center.

Forgotten that you're suicidal? Well raganwald is here to remind you.

I may come off as a giant ass downer saying this, but it's the cold hard truth. This does the opposite of good.

There are a couple of platform zealot prats rambling on with their standard, dated anti-Android nonsense in here. It is disheartening that they haven't been carpet bombed into the hellban so many voices of reason end of enduring.

I'm seriously considering picking up some android kit after reading more about how the marketplace works now.

Do you think it would be worth it to just focus on ICS at this point?

On iOS I just support the latest. (I figure users with the older versions can stay on them til they upgrade and it reduces support issues drastically)

Worthless market share? Zero profit? Such emotionally-driven hubris has no place on HN.

There is definitely a different philosophy, though. The Android approach was that it was better to be correct -- if you scroll a page or a webpage, that what scrolls into the viewport needs to be correct, while iOS happily scrolled in a checkerboard. I prefer the stock Android approach (some devices, such as the GS II, sub in the "better to be fast" approach, giving smoother superficial interactivity) so long as there is enough hardware that the result isn't too painful.

How do you define "correct"? The "correct" behavior is dependent on what you're trying to achieve. What you're trying to achieve should be defined with reference to the user: what will make the user happiest?

In a multi-touch interface, where you're trying to maintain the direct manipulation illusion, preserving "feel" at the expense of showing the rendered content a split-second earlier is almost certainly the right trade-off. The user will chalk the checkerboard up to page loading and their internet connection. They'll chalk hiccups in manipulation up to the device itself.

Android started as a platform trying to out-Blackberry RIM. When the iPhone was released in 2007 they switched to a model of trying to out-do iOS.

I'd say if anything this argues for a total absence of correlation with user experience, no?

Source? There have been many reports of Android phones outselling the iPhone, but I am not familiar with the ones about Android devices outselling iOS devices (iPod touch, iPad, etc.)

At least cellphones is a more like-for-like comparison.

IMHO, iOS users spend more on apps because iTunes is better than Android's Marketplace - this may have been a deliberate decision by Google nonetheless. Did you know that I am not allowed to sell Android apps in the Marketplace because my country is still not approved for registering a Google Merchant account? That's right, it's almost 2012 and while I can sell apps on iTunes, I can't on Android's Marketplace. However I have no problem integrating AdMob in those apps. So it's like Google wants ad-supported instead of paid apps, which considering their main business model it isn't that shocking.

However, you can't say that Android and its UI is not a success.

The interface problem with Android might come in to play when people are considering their second smartphone, and devices are a lot faster these days. Of course, no one should need a dual core or quad core CPU for a smooth experience on their phone.

I have an iPhone 3GS and a Galaxy S which recently upgraded to Gingerbread. The iPhone experience is indeed more "smooth", however that doesn't bother me because the advantages that my Galaxy S gives me outweigh the smoothness of the iPhone.

As an example, on my Galaxy S I was free to install a calls / SMS blocker. You can blacklist certain numbers and then it's as if those numbers don't exist - not only it blocks the calls / messages, but it also removes all traces from the logs. Last time I checked these types of apps where banned from iTunes. On Android it isn't so cut and dry either, as these apps are using private APIs that aren't documented, however they are allowed on the Marketplace.

Another example would be the kickass integration my device has with my Google Apps account. For instance all my phone numbers are synchronized with Google Contacts. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure this is only a matter of preferences and I could probably do the same thing on the iPhone, however this works both ways and I'm having an easier time with my Android to do what I want.

The only annoyance I have with my Galaxy S is the slow upgrade cycle. It will probably take forever for Samsung to deliver to me an upgrade to Android 4. Which is why my next phone will be a Google Galaxy Nexus, or whatever blessed phone will come next after it.

Do they? The big Android surge only came in the last year, so the vast majority of Android users are on their first.

I'm not sure Android is clearly succeeding. Samsung, etc. are succeeding. If they switch to a superior OS (Windows?) but keep similar pricing I suspect only a very small core of hardcore Android fans would remain.

Nonetheless, while Android continually works to smooth out the rough edges -- helped along by the march of technology -- this is something that is a bit overblown: Minor jutters of the interface is something that primarily irritates people as a relative thing, not as an absolute thing.

If you are a developer or a reviewer and you regularly use an iOS device and an Android device, the difference is evident and jarring. If you're an end-use it quickly disappears and is a non-issue. It just isn't a real problem for end users.

It's the same as getting an upgrade to your PC, a new video card, etc. You were perfectly happy before, but relative to your new reality the old one seems subpar, and you overestimate how much it interferes with your enjoyment of the device.

Basically, I'm an existence proof against your argument (and now a happy iPhone owner too).

That wasn't what I was talking about. I'm talking about almost imperceptible, frame-or-two jitters that is the current state of Android on virtually any contemporary device. The top selling Android devices are all "buttery smooth" in the perception of their users, even if relative to an iPhone it is herky jerky.

per your quote: "It's the same as getting an upgrade to your PC, a new video card, etc. You were perfectly happy before, but relative to your new reality the old one seems subpar, and you overestimate how much it interferes with your enjoyment of the device." Doesn't quite make sense in this market though. It's all about having the fastest, shiniest, device. And if you can't keep up or deliver ever demanding performance increases, you die. If good was good enough, and we didn't care that the next best thing was only marginally better, we'd still be using punch cards.

It's not even about that. It's about something usable and working as expected. I have an Android smartphone (LG P350) with bundled Facebook and Twitter, both of which I never use because they're too heavy for the phone. They barely work, they hang up for minutes, and crash my homescreen. And if I try to sync them, it usually ends with me taking the battery out after few minutes of staring at shining screen of a totally non-responsive (hardware buttons included) phone. Not to mention that once or twice an incoming call was too heavy for that phone to handle, => battery removal operation necessary.

Next time before choosing Android, I'll carefully test current devices, and switch to iPhone if I ever find a trace of UI lag.

However to the relative thing, to most smartphone users the things that matter are can I use Facebook, how is the picture quality, can I share videos, etc. Others want a keyboard, big and bright screen, etc. To normal users -- the ones buying the overwhelming bulk of devices -- this just isn't the big issue that it is on tech boards. It just isn't.

So I'd put that up to a plain old bug (albeit a really frustrating one, and knowing the Android ecosystem one unlikely to be fixed), not a platform misfeature.

That most certainly does bother me, and I've yet to discover how to disable it so it simply reacts immediately.

The task manager/switcher is a child of the home screen. This overloaded functionality makes sense that you go to the home screen immediately and if you happen to click again it goes to the secondary mode.

Vlingo on the GS II has nothing to do with the home screen. It is its own world.

Should they have made the very first click instantly go to the home screen anyways (which could involve a lot of busy work given how rich an Android homescreen can be)? Good question. I don't think the two are directly comparable however.

Except when they're trying out different devices looking to buy one.

Also, to a certain extent people put up with stuff like this because they don't know it can be better. E.g. Windows's shitty move/resize for all those years. But do you think, in the face of OS X, Windows could've continued to do without compositing up to now?

Yes, it is. When people ask me how I like my new smartphone, I always say to them: "I like the idea behind Android, but it sucks in use; this smartphone is too weak to handle the basic OS, which makes using it terribly annoying for most of the time".

Yes, it sucks. There are constant lags in everything from button presses to scrolling. Main screen gets killed by the OS every few minutes, and it takes it 30 seconds to load up and become usable. Activating Wi-Fi and letting Facebook and GMail sync at the same time equals to several-minute long hang followed by me plugging the battery out. The phone occasionally hangs when receiving calls, and often when trying to dial.

Yes, for me, Android phones are piece of crap. I use mine, I put up with it, but it's not pleasant. It's damn annoying every single day.

I would posit, based upon nothing, that in practice JIT systems can be a net negative to the overwhelming majority of run-once JavaScript encountered across the tubes.

This story has nothing to do with Chrome. Yet like with every single story about Firefox, here's some guy slurring Firefox while praising Chrome.