Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament

Re:Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament by mikeash on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @09:44AM (#10386542)

I find that sort of comment to be extremely counterproductive, because it's totally off the original topic and it seems to be the result of searching for some link to controversy and then pouncing on whatever's found.

I don't really like clicking on the comments for an article about the economics of a chess tournament to find somebody whining about a prize for women players that isn't even mentioned in that article. It's just uncouth. Even if such prizes are a bad idea, there's not worth derailing the conversation, and it's rude to track down some nitpicky complaint to jump on.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament by minority-one on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @11:05AM (#10387007)

How is it derailing the conversation? Are we keeping you from having your arguments in other branches of the comment section?

Why should there be a section for people who want to talk about the aspects you want to talk about, but not a section for stuff I and others want to talk about?

I understand you might not like to click on a chess article to find something else being discussed. Well, that happens to all of us in different ways. The way I deal with it is, I simply skip the comment branches that I don't care for.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Counterintuitive economics of a chess tournament by mikeash on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @10:32PM (#10390985)

Attention is a finite resource, and stuff like this sucks it up like a sponge.

[ Parent | on HN ]