why would you call this trolling? the submitter's history indicates he is participating here in good faith. and i think the idea of finding two articles espousing diametrically opposed ideas and submitting them both is pretty clever. further, the conversations generated seem to indicate that people here want to talk about this constructively.
It's understood that one thread serves as channel for communication, so a discussion can take place between both sides. A second thread only dilutes the conversation; there are no separate parliament houses for separate party members, they all share one.
If I came across an opposing view, I would typically submit it in a comment/reply, not start a separate thread. And if you look at the topic IDs, they were submitted right after the other (i.e. submitter knew of both sides before hand.)
That, and the triviality of the subject made be suspicious of the submitter's intentions. I didn't mean to be hurtful, but, for crying out loud ..
there are certain evergreen topics here that are always going to lead to heated debate. iphone versus android versus pre, mac versus windows versus linux, rails versus drupal versus php, ruby versus python versus c++ versus perl versus lisp, etc etc etc.
each time an article is posted here that takes a stand one way or the other, it prejudices the resultant discussion. it's sort of inherently understood that, if you want to comment strongly anti-iphone, you better wait until the posted article itself is also anti-iphone, or else you're going to face stiff opposition and downvotes.
by posting two articles, one pro-tab and one anti-tab, the submitter has neatly sidestepped that problem. if news.yc tilted strongly one way or the other, you'd expect one article or the other to get most of the upvotes, and the other one would sink. as it turns out, both articles have been running neck-and-neck for hours. interesting. it shows that tab lovers and haters exist here in equal proportions, which i really wouldn't have guessed.
"each time an article is posted here that takes a stand one way or the other, it prejudices the resultant discussion."
Wouldn't a good thing to do in such a situation be to write an article of one's own summarizing the key points from both the pro and anti arguments, titling it something like "To tab or not to tab" and linking to that instead?
That way you don't have to take a stand on a polarizing article but could get the benefit of the HN community's discussion?
HN usually has great discussion even on crummy topics and I can empathize with the intent to tap into such discussion on a subject of interest, but this dual posting (in my purely subjective opinion) has a whiff of deception about it - a "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" thing.
"by posting two articles, one pro-tab and one anti-tab, the submitter has neatly sidestepped that problem. "
Yes it is a neat hack. But I also agree with Mahmud in that this seems (somewhat) trollish.(What's next? Pairs of "Lisp is cool/ Lisp sucks" "Ruby is better than Python/Python is better than Ruby" articles? - Good on you for spotting it, Mahmud!)
i'm not suggesting that dual posts should become the norm, I'm just noting that this is a clever hack that illustrates a problem in the system. i think it's human nature to prefer a two-horse race where half the viewers root for one and the other half for the other, rather than a one-horse race where half the audience is rooting for, the other half against.
if this hack started becoming common, I'm sure the editors would eventually put a stop to it.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I was hoping for (and got) intelligent, measured discussion from a lot of smart people on the history, merits, demerits, etc of both approaches. I felt (and still believe) there would have been less discussion without both articles being posted. As it is, the HN front page often features opposing viewpoints simultaneously, one often in response to the other. Submitting them together simply accelerated the process. It's more interesting than a poll ("Spaces or Tabs?") and FAR more interesting than me typing up a summary of both arguments and submitting that instead, as you suggested in an earlier comment.
" I was hoping for (and got) intelligent, measured discussion"
the line between this and "argument" (used in the debating sense, not in the shout at each other sense) is very thin. The word to focus on is "provoke" not "argument". What makes it "argument" is that by setting up artificial poles opposed to each other simultaneously you are attempting a combative argument vs an exploratory one. That it didn't turn out that way is due to the strength of the HN community, which largely didn't take the bait. But bait in the water, there certainly was.
This is (imo) abuse of the system. Just do a thought experiment and imagine people submitting all kinds of paired posts (like you did) to get "intelligent measured responses" to their own questions - "Emacs is better than Vim"/ "Vim is better than Emacs", say. "Measured responses", sure!
HN would go to hell very fast if everone started looking for "measured responses" in this fashion. Quoting allenbrunson , "I'm just noting that this is a clever hack that illustrates a problem in the system.". It is clever. and it is abuse in that it takes advantage of a vulnerability in the system.
"I felt (and still believe) there would have been less discussion without both articles being posted."
yes this is the hack bit. And it works (as long as it is just the odd person doing this). Jumping a red light "works" too, if reducing the length of your trip is the only criterion.
"FAR more interesting than me typing up a summary of both arguments and submitting that instead, as you suggested in an earlier comment."
In other words you don't want to do any work up front but do want get people to argue each side of artificially paired posts. Hence the word "provoke".
As Allen said above, "if this hack started becoming common, I'm sure the editors would eventually put a stop to it."
In other words, it is only the rarity and novelty of this tactic that stops you from getting stomped on.
All that said, do what you will! If such abuse continues and spreads, the moderators will land on it with both feet.
Or you may indeed have found a superior method of topic submission and I am completely off base, in which case I'd expect the other participants on HN to copy your superior style of topic submission.
