5 ms·

As someone who has had some small disagreements with dang and I don't always see eye to eye with him; * the moderators, I believe, really do what they think is

As someone who has had some small disagreements with dang and I don't always see eye to eye with him; * the moderators, I believe, really do what they think is best for the community, * they work hard at a pretty thankless job * they are pretty transparent and manage their potential conflicts of interest well, which is saying a lot, since action in virtually any thread could presimably be related. So sure, threads can be disappered by moderators, it is what they are supposed to do. Keep the discussion in a few centralized threads and not 20 blogspam articles. Also, we should be thankful for what we don't see. So while I thinm you have a relavent point, and they can't be perfect all the time, on balance their pretty sharp people and am thankful for their contribution,

lmm 11y ago
I'm sure the moderators think they're doing their best. But there is no transparency ( e.g. there's nothing like lobste.rs' moderator actions log ), and as a result I'm not at all sure that they are managing conflicts of interest well. The only discussion I was lucky enough to spot in the process of being disappeared was http://readwrite.com/2012/12/03/lets-all-shed-tears-for-the-crappy-startups-that-cant-raise-any-more-money http://readwrite.com/2012/12/03/lets-all-shed-tears-for-the-... which, while not exactly the kindest writing I've ever seen, contained some real insight and was generating a productive discussion - and the conflict of interest is pretty clear. And neither of us have any idea how many other discussions get killed like that.