There is a large discussion on the subject here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7445761
• Parameters are loose (click link for more) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7447668
• You can post 5 pending comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7447568
• You can endorse at 500 karma https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7447701
• Might make it more AJAXy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7447778
• Users can retract pending comments with the delete link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7446490
• The HN feature suggestion thread is exempt https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7446395
• A code snippet showing how it works https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7446596
• in this thread: "turning it off for now"
Here's why: It says that you can't post another comment when you have a comment pending. Let's assume that:
a) Most "good" contributors write comments of varying quality (maybe on average 90% good 10% not so good)
b) Most people, when they interrupt their work flow to participate in the HN community, write on average more than one comment (if they comment at all).
So inevitably, the average user will repeatedly bump into the "can't comment, have to wait" wall. Which is inconvenient and constitutes a blunt reminder of the "value asymmetry" between the site and the lowly user.
I'd say it is fairly reasonable to assume that being stopped and having to wait is rather off-putting to most HN users. So it hangs on how many repetitions of the wait cycle the average HN user can stand.
There are enough 1k+ karma posters that, at least unless the karma bar is either raised or a lot of malcontents are culled, consensus on controversial topics is likely to be impossible. At least I hope so.
Well _of course_ consensus on controversial topics is impossible. That's kind of what makes them controversial topics. But how is that related to whether you never even see controversial posts because group-think has not resulted in uncensoring them?
If that's group think, then awesome. Let the group think begin.
I can recall a number of occasions where somebody told me something important and they might as well have started out with "Look, asshole". Deservedly so, because I was not just wrong but wrong in a way that was conveniently self-serving and harmful to them.
I would also like to see the dickishness taken down a notch or three here. But if it comes at the cost of making this more of an echo chamber, then it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
The people running this site have asked that this not be one of them.
I say this as a person who appreciates and uses sarcasm more than most... people can communicate just fine, often more effectively, without it.
Plus, it's more than just how something is said. If you read PG's short request, he's looking for a change in attitude in how points are even argued. Argue as colleagues coming to a solution together, not as adversaries trying to take each other down.
However, you've created a false dichotomy; there are things in the world that are neither abusive nor particularly collegial.
The concern is that in getting rid of the abuse, Hacker News will also get rid of uncomfortable truth.
Like I said, I'm sarcastic - but I definitely have seen HN go downhill since I've been here over the last couple of years. I look at the need to say things more constructively as a learning and growth opportunity.
The policy doesn't have to say that people shouldn't endorse uncomfortable truths for it to have that result. That people will misuse power to keep comfortable is something that you shouldn't have to have explained to you.
I'm not personally worried. I'm seen as an insider. As Louis CK says, "How many advantages can one person have?" [1]
But people who aren't part of the HN tribe already think they're treated unfairly here, and from what I read on Twitter, they're confident that this change will only increase the level of groupthink by making sure their comments never get even seen.
Personally, I think that comments that incite and inflame are often useful. I agree that there's plenty of pure dickishness here, and I'd love to see that go. But sometimes comments are upsetting because they contain uncomfortable truth. Sometimes we skate on by the polite statement when a passionate outburst will force to see things through someone else's eyes.
One of the nice things about HN is that users are rather blunt in their critiques. I think the gatekeepers (>1k karma) will generaly do a good job separating frankness from hostility.
At any rate, it's an interesting experiment and I'm truly curious to see how it plays out.
Personally I like the idea of pending comments.