4 ms·

I most certainly do not use my account "primarily for political or ideological battle" so I am very clearly not violating the guidelines. I answered someone's

I most certainly do not use my account "primarily for political or ideological battle" so I am very clearly not violating the guidelines. I answered someone's question with the most accurate and factual answer I could. That you find the answer controversial does not change the fact that I'm acting in good faith. My personal political beliefs aren't even relevant or expressed in the the reply. I'm stating an opinion based on the facts as I see them. I provided many citations, to a trusted source, which supports my comment. And the opinion expressed is the same one expressed by most of the world's military experts from all political backgrounds. You should be warning the users that abused the flagging system to censor my comment. Instead, you're helping the abusive mob by threatening to ban me. IMHO should unflag my comment, warn those users that flagged it, and apologize to me.

sctb 9y ago
Users likely flagged your post because they felt that it was relatively uninformative political boilerplate with grains of unsubstantive flamebait: “People are starting to realize that the Cold War never ended.” and an offshoot of a tangent to boot. Political discussions on Hacker News need to be civil and substantive, like the guidelines ask. Even more so because the flamewar risk is much higher and this is not a flamewar site.
- staunch 9y ago
  My comment was civil, informed, and substantive. It includes an answer to the question, and seven supporting citations. It also refrains from any unnecessarily controversial aspects of the argument. The comment very well could've been upvoted as the most useful reply. The other replies were terribly uniformed. We'll never know because it was censored by a small number of users that didn't agree with the argument. An abuse of the flagging system that you've chosen to support and reinforce.
  - grzm 9y ago
    As an exercise, set aside temporarily your judgement of whether the flagging was abuse or otherwise. What are some reasons members may have flagged the comment? Take an additional step: assume they’re reasonable people. Are any of the reasons you came up with consistent with that view? What are some reasons that are consistent with them being reasonable? Are there potential readings of your comment that may lead to their action, even if it wasn’t what you intended? This isn’t meant as a defense of their actions. It’s only to aid in more effective communication. Clearly people acted in a manner you believe is unfair or unjustified. Communication involves both the commenter and the reader. As you can only control one of those ends, what can you do to improve the probability of successful communication? I don’t expect answers to these questions. I just find them useful when communication that I’m a part of breaks down, and offer them here in the hope that you may find them useful, too.

sctb 9y ago

Users likely flagged your post because they felt that it was relatively uninformative political boilerplate with grains of unsubstantive flamebait: “People are starting to realize that the Cold War never ended.” and an offshoot of a tangent to boot. Political discussions on Hacker News need to be civil and substantive, like the guidelines ask. Even more so because the flamewar risk is much higher and this is not a flamewar site.

staunch 9y ago
My comment was civil, informed, and substantive. It includes an answer to the question, and seven supporting citations. It also refrains from any unnecessarily controversial aspects of the argument. The comment very well could've been upvoted as the most useful reply. The other replies were terribly uniformed. We'll never know because it was censored by a small number of users that didn't agree with the argument. An abuse of the flagging system that you've chosen to support and reinforce.
- grzm 9y ago
  As an exercise, set aside temporarily your judgement of whether the flagging was abuse or otherwise. What are some reasons members may have flagged the comment? Take an additional step: assume they’re reasonable people. Are any of the reasons you came up with consistent with that view? What are some reasons that are consistent with them being reasonable? Are there potential readings of your comment that may lead to their action, even if it wasn’t what you intended? This isn’t meant as a defense of their actions. It’s only to aid in more effective communication. Clearly people acted in a manner you believe is unfair or unjustified. Communication involves both the commenter and the reader. As you can only control one of those ends, what can you do to improve the probability of successful communication? I don’t expect answers to these questions. I just find them useful when communication that I’m a part of breaks down, and offer them here in the hope that you may find them useful, too.