5 ms·

Perhaps I live with rose colored glasses, but I do not believe that anyone has ever be be banned from HN for making that quoted statement unless you have left o

by nkurz 10y ago

Perhaps I live with rose colored glasses, but I do not believe that anyone has ever be be banned from HN for making that quoted statement unless you have left out some essential detail. My guess would be that you made that statement, and subsequently you were banned for something else. Perhaps you could post a link to the thread in question? Never mind, maybe I found it, or at least the account: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039872. A little bristly, and I'm not sure if the assumptions are correct (Is it unequivocal that "Status is zero sum"?) but doesn't seem ban-worthy. But since it's a year before the account appears banned, maybe I'm missing a later comment with the exact quote? Presuming this is the account you are referring to, it looks to have actually been banned for the similarly themed but much more aggressive comment "Sexual dimorphism is real. Your impotent rage and ridiculous ideologies will never change that fact. I will be greatly amused by your kind's zealous need to tilt at windmills." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294), which when challenged by Dan you defended by saying "I have a policy to return hostility in kind." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11227788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11227788). I think this counts as leaving out an essential detail. The problem is not that discussing sexually dimorphism is off limits (others appear to have done so without being banned) but that taking "he did it first" is not a acceptable excuse for rude behavior here. Or maybe I have the timeline slightly off? It's hard to tell when some of the edits occurred. In any case, I'm going to keep my rose colored glasses on for a bit longer. I'd encourage you to keep making scientifically accurate statements about sexual dimorphism from your new account, but given that some interpretations have sensitive implications, it would probably be wise to approach it as politely as possible. In fact, I have a feeling I'll get banned for this comment. No, I don't think you will. You can actually discuss many "controversial" topics here as long as you try to do so politely. Assuming I found the right thread, it looks like the ban wasn't because you raised a forbidden topic, but for your stated policy of returning hostility in kind. "Tit for tat" has it's place in game theory, but in real games (and communities) it has some serious defects if blindly applied. The main defect in this context is that if all players adhere to the simplest version, it has a tendency to end in a "death spiral" of defection. Eventually, a poorly phrased response is interpreted as an insult, and after that it's a permanent race to the bottom. The strategy can be improved by adding some degree of "forgiveness" to allow both parties to reset to cooperation. Adjusting the trigger to require multiple offenses before retaliation ("tit for two tats") can also help to account for inevitable communication errors. Welcome back.

james-watson 10y ago
That is a good first order analysis, but I have witnessed HN darlings get away with far, far worse ad-hominem vulgarity with nary a peep from the moderators. This is most definitely about thoughtcrimes, and not manners. For history's sake, let's link the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed. There was zero rule breaking in that one, just thoughtcrimes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11221055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11221055 As a scientist, I find human behavior fascinating. Particularly when people say one thing, and do another. My argument has always been as follows: If HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress, why do they ruthlessly suppress established scientific consensus? And here's my hypothesis: because it does not fit the current political zeitgeist.
nkurz 10y ago
[Responding to myself since I can't respond to the the flagged and dead original. You can click on your username and turn on "Show Dead" to view it.] I have witnessed HN darlings get away with far, far worse ad-hominem vulgarity with nary a peep from the moderators Likely, but enforcement is always going to be "spotty", so it's almost impossible to distinguish bias from bad luck in any particular case. And perhaps they are "darlings" because they interact politely with the moderators? For history's sake, let's link the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed. I don't know if it is intentional, but I think you are conflating different issues. Dan marked the thread off topic and explained why. Subsequently, another comment in the thread was killed by user flags. It is unlikely that Dan killed it himself. There was zero rule breaking in that one, just thoughtcrimes Arguably, although the counter-argument that Dan presents is that "attractive nuisances" are against the rules. He explains his reasoning (which I agree with) in a more recent response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12163939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12163939. The goal of moderation is not ensuring technical compliance with arbitrary rules, rather then goal is "protecting civil, substantive discussion". Like the common (and often truncated) quote that "democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms", the standard against which HN should be judged is not whether the moderation is perfect, but how it compares to the alternatives. Based on the current state of HN relative to other internet discussion sites, I'd claim that the moderation seems to be working pretty well. Where do you think is doing a better job? Separately, are "clevernickname" and "FD3SA" both your accounts? The transition it the thread from one account to the other seems odd to explain otherwise. If so, the "zero rule breaking in that one" seems like an odd claim, akin to the "Freemen on the Land" claims of immunity from the the courts based on being "Incorrectly Identified". See page 75 here: https://thelastbastille.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/meads-v-meads-2012-abqb-571-organized-pseudolegal-commercial-argument-opca-freeman-on-the-land-decision.pdf https://thelastbastille.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/meads-v-... If HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress, why do they ruthlessly suppress established scientific consensus? I know this must feel like a well framed question, but it's really not. Why should we assume "HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress" any more than assuming "the moon is made of blue cheese"? Who exactly is the "they" that is suppressing scientific consensus, and if this was the goal why choose such a round-about way to do so? For that matter, what does "consensus" have to do with science? And here's my hypothesis: because it does not fit the current political zeitgeist. A scientific hypothesis should make a falsifiable prediction. Is this the sense in which you are using the term? If so, what predictions does your hypothesis make that are different from a plausible "null hypothesis" like "the moderators are trying their best to keep HN as a place where substantive discussion is possible"? How would we go about testing these predictions?

by nkurz 10y ago

james-watson 10y ago

That is a good first order analysis, but I have witnessed HN darlings get away with far, far worse ad-hominem vulgarity with nary a peep from the moderators. This is most definitely about thoughtcrimes, and not manners. For history's sake, let's link the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed. There was zero rule breaking in that one, just thoughtcrimes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11221055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11221055 As a scientist, I find human behavior fascinating. Particularly when people say one thing, and do another. My argument has always been as follows: If HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress, why do they ruthlessly suppress established scientific consensus? And here's my hypothesis: because it does not fit the current political zeitgeist.

nkurz 10y ago

[Responding to myself since I can't respond to the the flagged and dead original. You can click on your username and turn on "Show Dead" to view it.] I have witnessed HN darlings get away with far, far worse ad-hominem vulgarity with nary a peep from the moderators Likely, but enforcement is always going to be "spotty", so it's almost impossible to distinguish bias from bad luck in any particular case. And perhaps they are "darlings" because they interact politely with the moderators? For history's sake, let's link the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed. I don't know if it is intentional, but I think you are conflating different issues. Dan marked the thread off topic and explained why. Subsequently, another comment in the thread was killed by user flags. It is unlikely that Dan killed it himself. There was zero rule breaking in that one, just thoughtcrimes Arguably, although the counter-argument that Dan presents is that "attractive nuisances" are against the rules. He explains his reasoning (which I agree with) in a more recent response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12163939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12163939. The goal of moderation is not ensuring technical compliance with arbitrary rules, rather then goal is "protecting civil, substantive discussion". Like the common (and often truncated) quote that "democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms", the standard against which HN should be judged is not whether the moderation is perfect, but how it compares to the alternatives. Based on the current state of HN relative to other internet discussion sites, I'd claim that the moderation seems to be working pretty well. Where do you think is doing a better job? Separately, are "clevernickname" and "FD3SA" both your accounts? The transition it the thread from one account to the other seems odd to explain otherwise. If so, the "zero rule breaking in that one" seems like an odd claim, akin to the "Freemen on the Land" claims of immunity from the the courts based on being "Incorrectly Identified". See page 75 here: https://thelastbastille.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/meads-v-meads-2012-abqb-571-organized-pseudolegal-commercial-argument-opca-freeman-on-the-land-decision.pdf https://thelastbastille.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/meads-v-... If HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress, why do they ruthlessly suppress established scientific consensus? I know this must feel like a well framed question, but it's really not. Why should we assume "HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress" any more than assuming "the moon is made of blue cheese"? Who exactly is the "they" that is suppressing scientific consensus, and if this was the goal why choose such a round-about way to do so? For that matter, what does "consensus" have to do with science? And here's my hypothesis: because it does not fit the current political zeitgeist. A scientific hypothesis should make a falsifiable prediction. Is this the sense in which you are using the term? If so, what predictions does your hypothesis make that are different from a plausible "null hypothesis" like "the moderators are trying their best to keep HN as a place where substantive discussion is possible"? How would we go about testing these predictions?