Isn't some cynicism necessary to balance out herd-like behavior? Doesn't cynicism help to temper what may otherwise become a rah-rah echo chamber? To me, this policy seems like a way to squash otherwise-potentially-valid criticism--or cynicism (perhaps of startup culture itself, due to Y-combinator's interest in startup culture continuing). Under the new policy, my comment could be considered gratuitously negative, no? Even though it's designed to spark an honest debate.
>If it is valid, on-topic criticism, it isn't gratuitous negativity.
We'll need some assurance that invalid criticism can also fall under the category of "not gratuitously negative" as well. Otherwise, we've just defined "invalid" criticism as being against the rules. And strangely, the people in power are always the ones whose viewpoints are "valid", "true", etc.
"Under the new policy, my comment could be considered gratuitously negative, no?"
No, your comment would be fine. The idea is, if you're going to be negative, at least be thoughtful about how you want to say it. Looking at it a different way, if you're negative, do you take the pleasure from being honest or from being dramatic? If you take pleasure from being honest, there's nothing stopping you from being both honest and welcoming. If you want to be dramatic, do it as a joke, but don't do it to boost your ego, and go after the idea rather than the person. There are ways to have your cake and eat it.
Is it? I've always thought of cynicism as a terrible thing. You don't need to be "distrustful of human integrity and sincerity" in order to disagree with someone.
For whatever its worth, I don't see this comment as "gratuitously negative". You're not posting just to get a rise, you're leaving people with something substantive to reply to by way of expanding on your viewpoint (a "this sucks" comment doesn't do that).
