There's dichotomy at work here. The old vs. the new. As users flood in from reddit we're faced with some interesting juxtapositions. One of which is the basic idea of how you enter a community. On the one hand you have the lurk moar crowd, telling you to sit patiently and listen and that, in time, you will learn enough to try to become part of the community. On the other hand you have the see what sticks crowd, throwing out every idea they can imagine and hoping that something results in systemic feedback.
The former preserves tradition through discipline, where the new can learn the culture through careful observation of the old. It's a deterrent to the headstrong but a strong preserver of time tested culture through generations.
The latter cultivates innovation, where new ideas are tried and tested against the systems to see their validity. The flaw, of course, is that the idea is only new in the eyes of the presenter and most attempts are simply echos of the failed ideas of the past.
Trying and failing vs listening and learning. Two methods for inserting yourself into a community and each with their own merits and drawbacks. The question would seem to be, which of these is better, but any close examination would always result in that most frustrating answer, "it depends". And so the real question becomes, what is a system that can adapt the innovation of the latter with the respect of the former?
I'm not sure I have an answer. I'm not sure it matters before currency is sorted. But at least it's an interesting question.
The discussion at hand isn't "Trying and failing vs. listening and learning." The discussion at hand is disruption.
When you walk into a pub you are likely to overhear a number of conversations. The socially skilled may attempt to join a conversation they overhear in such a way to participate. If they accomplish this in a deft and eloquent fashion, they have become a part of the conversation. Regardless of their conversational skill, the longer they hang out and listen to the discussion at hand the more easily they will join it.
Boors will walk into a pub and say "GO REDSKINS!" regardless of the fact that the discussion is politics. They will be resented. It's not because the pub dislikes newcomers, it's because the pub doesn't want their balanced social strata disturbed by someone who hasn't bothered to familiarize themselves with their environment.
It's entirely possible to shift a conversation from politics to football, but it requires familiarity with the participants. If you just shout "GO REDSKINS" at the top of your lungs, all you're doing is demonstrating that you don't value the other pub patrons. A funny position to take, considering you walked into the pub.
There is no "innovation" from disregarding the existing culture of any community. The ideas aren't new. It's naive to assume that you, the newcomer, are injecting something "new" into a community that you haven't participated in - if you have no knowledge of the community prior to last week, your "innovation" could come up every second Tuesday and you'd be unaware.
LURK MOAR.
It's really this simple: Reddit has created a culture where you need to say your piece right now or it will get lost in the blizzard of mundane bullshit. You have to shout, and you have to shout immediately. Hubski doesn't have that culture. You can wait, you can watch, you can contribute to what everyone else is saying.
The conversation has been ongoing since long before you got here. Everyone is welcome to participate. But shouting out "I'M CHANGING THE SUBJECT" isn't innovative, it's disruptive, and it will be resented by those who predate you.