4 ms·

He's probably shadowbanned I suppose? From my experience it's simply better to create a new account almost every time I want to comment (once a day or so). Als

He's probably shadowbanned I suppose? From my experience it's simply better to create a new account almost every time I want to comment (once a day or so). Also new accounts have severe restrictions on number of comments per day. Maybe he's trying to bypass that.

tptacek 10y ago
No, they're not. And no, that's not what they're doing. Practically no one on this site is shadowbanned anymore (as far as I know it only happens to spammers and the like). If you piss off the new mods ("new" as of several years ago), they'll publicly announce your banning; there's effectively a modlog on the site now in the comment histories of 'dang and 'sctb. That's a deliberate choice. What Paul Graham (and his original, part-time moderation team) were doing was ineffective, because stealth bans are simultaneously provocative and have no power to reinforce norms among the rest of commenters. Plenty of people have been banned on HN and gone on to make some sockpuppet or another, and so long as those sockpuppets don't do the same things that got their original accounts banned, they survive on HN. If you read between the lines on Dan and Scott's comments, this seems to be informally condoned. Nobody's looking for a giant fight here. Moderation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Long story short: by all means use throwaways to prosecute arguments you don't want your identity attached to†. But making a new throwaway mid-thread is obnoxious and sort of intrinsically uncivil. I won't have a conversation with someone who does that. What I'll do instead is flag the comments. † I'd personally rather you didn't, and never do myself, but I'll check my privilege, if wishes were fishes, &c.
- bsusuabwbw 10y ago
  That's not really that easy. Most IP ranges of my home connection are banned. I mostly comment using my mobile. And then most of the time when I write a comment it's already dead automatically on page refresh. So I usually comment in incognito mode so there's no cookies or passwords I can save. What I'm saying is: maybe that's his case and dismissing his arguments because he can't use a normal account is silly.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    That's not what I'm doing. I haven't dismissed any arguments. I'm electing not to have a debate with someone who refuses to sign any single name to all their comments in the discussion. That's an eminently reasonable boundary to have, but even if it wasn't, it's my boundary.
    - bsusuabwbw 10y ago
      But you know it's him, so the user name hardly matters. You're just being picky.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        No, I'm not. Like a lot of people here, I put up with a mountain of nonsense and bad-faith commenting. I've had debates with "several people" simultaneously that were certainly individuals with sockpuppets. I've had sockpuppets refer to their other sockpuppets distant past comments as public support for their views. I've responded civilly and substantively to almost all of them. I've outed none of them. Here's where I draw the line. Sorry if that bothers you, but if it does, you're wrong, not me. Nobody needs to earn their boundaries and nobody is entitled to a response from anyone else here. But even if that wasn't the case, I'd've more than earned my boundaries a long time ago.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Most IP ranges of my home connection are banned. [On mobile] when I write a comment it's already dead automatically on page refresh. Have you contacted the mods to see why these might be the case? If you're using HN relatively often, I suggest joining the community by using a persistent username.
    - bsusuabwbw 10y ago
      I'm a fascist and most of my political comments are deemed "trolling" by dang (the other guy doesn't really seem to care much) and he's taken the time to ban all my IP ranges. I'm not interested in talking to him about it and I'll keep posting anyway. People almost never care about my account being new when I comment at all so this works for me. Thanks for your suggestion though.

tptacek 10y ago

No, they're not. And no, that's not what they're doing. Practically no one on this site is shadowbanned anymore (as far as I know it only happens to spammers and the like). If you piss off the new mods ("new" as of several years ago), they'll publicly announce your banning; there's effectively a modlog on the site now in the comment histories of 'dang and 'sctb. That's a deliberate choice. What Paul Graham (and his original, part-time moderation team) were doing was ineffective, because stealth bans are simultaneously provocative and have no power to reinforce norms among the rest of commenters. Plenty of people have been banned on HN and gone on to make some sockpuppet or another, and so long as those sockpuppets don't do the same things that got their original accounts banned, they survive on HN. If you read between the lines on Dan and Scott's comments, this seems to be informally condoned. Nobody's looking for a giant fight here. Moderation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Long story short: by all means use throwaways to prosecute arguments you don't want your identity attached to†. But making a new throwaway mid-thread is obnoxious and sort of intrinsically uncivil. I won't have a conversation with someone who does that. What I'll do instead is flag the comments. † I'd personally rather you didn't, and never do myself, but I'll check my privilege, if wishes were fishes, &c.

bsusuabwbw 10y ago
That's not really that easy. Most IP ranges of my home connection are banned. I mostly comment using my mobile. And then most of the time when I write a comment it's already dead automatically on page refresh. So I usually comment in incognito mode so there's no cookies or passwords I can save. What I'm saying is: maybe that's his case and dismissing his arguments because he can't use a normal account is silly.
- tptacek 10y ago
  That's not what I'm doing. I haven't dismissed any arguments. I'm electing not to have a debate with someone who refuses to sign any single name to all their comments in the discussion. That's an eminently reasonable boundary to have, but even if it wasn't, it's my boundary.
  - bsusuabwbw 10y ago
    But you know it's him, so the user name hardly matters. You're just being picky.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      No, I'm not. Like a lot of people here, I put up with a mountain of nonsense and bad-faith commenting. I've had debates with "several people" simultaneously that were certainly individuals with sockpuppets. I've had sockpuppets refer to their other sockpuppets distant past comments as public support for their views. I've responded civilly and substantively to almost all of them. I've outed none of them. Here's where I draw the line. Sorry if that bothers you, but if it does, you're wrong, not me. Nobody needs to earn their boundaries and nobody is entitled to a response from anyone else here. But even if that wasn't the case, I'd've more than earned my boundaries a long time ago.
- grzm 10y ago
  Most IP ranges of my home connection are banned. [On mobile] when I write a comment it's already dead automatically on page refresh. Have you contacted the mods to see why these might be the case? If you're using HN relatively often, I suggest joining the community by using a persistent username.
  - bsusuabwbw 10y ago
    I'm a fascist and most of my political comments are deemed "trolling" by dang (the other guy doesn't really seem to care much) and he's taken the time to ban all my IP ranges. I'm not interested in talking to him about it and I'll keep posting anyway. People almost never care about my account being new when I comment at all so this works for me. Thanks for your suggestion though.