3 ms·

> For example, maybe you could explain the full backstory of why this post was killed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313089 https://news.ycombinator.co

> For example, maybe you could explain the full backstory of why this post was killed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313089. I can explain it. It says right there that it was [flagged]. Enough people hit the "flag" link to automatically kill it.

nkurz 10y ago
That's the usual answer, but I think there may be more happening here than that. One slight oddity is that there was no "vouch" button visible to me on the dead comment. This made me wonder if there was a separate mechanism in play here. Out of self-interest, it also made me wonder if maybe my "vouching" privileges have been removed. Separately, although multiple flags can kill a comment, it's still subject to moderator review. Since Dan commented in this thread, this probably implies that he consciously decided to let the user flagging stand rather than reverse it. My phrasing may have been poor, but I wondered why this was. I've argued elsewhere in this thread that it would be interesting for both flags and downvotes to be public. I don't expect Dan to release this information here, but I'd personally be very interested to know who those user's were in this case, and on what basis they were flagging it. Separately, your tone seems particularly condescending. Is this by design? Why?
- DanBC 10y ago
  > One slight oddity is that there was no "vouch" button visible to me on the dead comment. The vouch button appears for me. > and on what basis they were flagging it. I didn't flag it, but it contains some deliberately provocative phrasing from someone who's previously had user flags (and a ban) for their posting style. In particular: >> the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed. These comments tend to attract downvotes and flags because they're untrue. For one thing that post doesn't appear to have been killed, and if it had been killed it probably would have been user flags, not mods, that did the killing.
  - nkurz 10y ago
    The vouch button appears for me. Interesting. I might understand this now. To discourage retaliation (I think) both downvoting and flagging are not allowed for direct responses to one's own stories and comments. Since "vouch" was added late, it reuses the same logic, even though the "retaliatory vouching" is not really a danger. I didn't flag it, but it contains some deliberately provocative phrasing from someone who's previously had user flags (and a ban) for their posting style. In the context of discussing perceived bias in moderation, I didn't find that particular comment to deliberately provocative. While context is important for interpretation, I think flagging (like vouching) should be done comment-by-comment rather than based on previous actions under a different account. Killing comments based on historic behavior makes "recovery from mistakes" more difficult, whether the mistake is on the part of the moderator or the poster. It's also not clear to me exactly why the FD3SA account (should we consider this the same user for purposes of flagging?) was banned. He ('james-watson') believes it was because the content of the posts and not the style. I doubted this, and suspect he was banned due to his expressed intention "to return hostility in kind". While bans on this basis may be good policy, if this is true 'james-watson' would have a reasonable argument that this is punishment is indeed for thoughtcrime. As one of the targets, you are of course entitled to have your own interpretation. For one thing that post doesn't appear to have been killed, and if it had been killed it probably would have been user flags, not mods, that did the killing. I agree, and made the same point here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315815. While this might be a good reason to downvote or rebut, I don't think that flagging is an appropriate response to factual inaccuracy.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I routinely flag drama. I didn't originally flag that comment, but I would have had I seen it before this part of the thread, because it's drama. The trend away from drama on this site in the modern Dan era of moderation is heartening, but we can always use less of it.
    - mintplant 10y ago
      > To discourage retaliation (I think) both downvoting and flagging are not allowed for direct responses to one's own stories and comments. Yep, that's exactly right. Downvotes are also disabled for comments older than a certain time interval (IIRC it's currently 8 hours). > Since "vouch" was added late, it reuses the same logic, even though the "retaliatory vouching" is not really a danger. That may well be true, and enabling the "vouch" link for replies to one's own comments sounds like a good idea. You should email hn@ycombinator.com about it -- they're usually very responsive.

nkurz 10y ago

That's the usual answer, but I think there may be more happening here than that. One slight oddity is that there was no "vouch" button visible to me on the dead comment. This made me wonder if there was a separate mechanism in play here. Out of self-interest, it also made me wonder if maybe my "vouching" privileges have been removed. Separately, although multiple flags can kill a comment, it's still subject to moderator review. Since Dan commented in this thread, this probably implies that he consciously decided to let the user flagging stand rather than reverse it. My phrasing may have been poor, but I wondered why this was. I've argued elsewhere in this thread that it would be interesting for both flags and downvotes to be public. I don't expect Dan to release this information here, but I'd personally be very interested to know who those user's were in this case, and on what basis they were flagging it. Separately, your tone seems particularly condescending. Is this by design? Why?

DanBC 10y ago
> One slight oddity is that there was no "vouch" button visible to me on the dead comment. The vouch button appears for me. > and on what basis they were flagging it. I didn't flag it, but it contains some deliberately provocative phrasing from someone who's previously had user flags (and a ban) for their posting style. In particular: >> the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed. These comments tend to attract downvotes and flags because they're untrue. For one thing that post doesn't appear to have been killed, and if it had been killed it probably would have been user flags, not mods, that did the killing.
- nkurz 10y ago
  The vouch button appears for me. Interesting. I might understand this now. To discourage retaliation (I think) both downvoting and flagging are not allowed for direct responses to one's own stories and comments. Since "vouch" was added late, it reuses the same logic, even though the "retaliatory vouching" is not really a danger. I didn't flag it, but it contains some deliberately provocative phrasing from someone who's previously had user flags (and a ban) for their posting style. In the context of discussing perceived bias in moderation, I didn't find that particular comment to deliberately provocative. While context is important for interpretation, I think flagging (like vouching) should be done comment-by-comment rather than based on previous actions under a different account. Killing comments based on historic behavior makes "recovery from mistakes" more difficult, whether the mistake is on the part of the moderator or the poster. It's also not clear to me exactly why the FD3SA account (should we consider this the same user for purposes of flagging?) was banned. He ('james-watson') believes it was because the content of the posts and not the style. I doubted this, and suspect he was banned due to his expressed intention "to return hostility in kind". While bans on this basis may be good policy, if this is true 'james-watson' would have a reasonable argument that this is punishment is indeed for thoughtcrime. As one of the targets, you are of course entitled to have your own interpretation. For one thing that post doesn't appear to have been killed, and if it had been killed it probably would have been user flags, not mods, that did the killing. I agree, and made the same point here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315815. While this might be a good reason to downvote or rebut, I don't think that flagging is an appropriate response to factual inaccuracy.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I routinely flag drama. I didn't originally flag that comment, but I would have had I seen it before this part of the thread, because it's drama. The trend away from drama on this site in the modern Dan era of moderation is heartening, but we can always use less of it.
  - mintplant 10y ago
    > To discourage retaliation (I think) both downvoting and flagging are not allowed for direct responses to one's own stories and comments. Yep, that's exactly right. Downvotes are also disabled for comments older than a certain time interval (IIRC it's currently 8 hours). > Since "vouch" was added late, it reuses the same logic, even though the "retaliatory vouching" is not really a danger. That may well be true, and enabling the "vouch" link for replies to one's own comments sounds like a good idea. You should email hn@ycombinator.com about it -- they're usually very responsive.