4 ms·

>have had posts flagged and received constructive feedback from dang I don't consider it constructive at all. In fact it's often just been used to stop a conve

>have had posts flagged and received constructive feedback from dang I don't consider it constructive at all. In fact it's often just been used to stop a conversation with no clear purpose or direction. It's been pretty vague, with really whimsical throwbacks to the guidelines that he's never been able to elucidate on which part I'm violating. >I nevertheless find that your posts tend to be strident They're blunt when I know people are not commenting in good faith or they've made no effort to actually educate themselves about a subject (the former and latter are often intertwined). I will not be changing my tone on such posts. >I wish that you could find ways to engage which are more in line with the HN guidelines. Which guidelines? So far as I've seen it's only based on which opinions are popular and are worded in a faux-intellectual manner and then you can basically get away with anything. I had the CEO of Bitlocker basically tell me I was worth less than his dog (because his dog does not have the ability to criticize him) and lo and behold guess which one of us got dang's attention. There are countless examples of this pattern that do not involve me, but other users on this site. I don't say anything I wouldn't say to anyone's face on here, so I'm certainly not going to be try to be even more academically-cutesy on the internet than I am even in person. A yesteryear account actually had my name and company information on it. Too bad that my place of employment started getting harassed by hard right-wingers for my comments on here (the only place any alias of mine has has had personal information on it has been this site). But the point is I am being honest, topical, and forthright so any any claims that I'm causing threads to spiral into flame wars seem a bit over the top.

rectang 8y ago
> Which guidelines? The "In Comments" section on this page: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > They're blunt when I know people are not commenting in good faith I think that may be where things start to spin out of control. From the guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Even when we may believe that someone is not commenting in good faith, adopting the constraint that we assume good faith nevertheless leads to more invigorating, challenging exchanges. By grappling with the strongest plausible interpretation, we grow to understand the opposition better and become stronger ourselves. I hope that you can engage under those terms, because if you can we'll all be enriched by your continued participation. But if that's not for you, I hope you'll find another venue. You write well and you're good at the harsh stuff (I'm reminded of Hunter from Daily Kos), but that's not what I come to HN for. > lo and behold guess which one of us got dang's attention. Here's someone who also thinks dang is biased, but in the opposite direction. :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17656115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17656115 Dan's an effective moderator. He can't police every transgression, but under his watch the forum stays more-or-less to the liking of those of us who value exchanges under the HN guidelines. Anyway, thanks for giving a busybody like me a hearing. :) Happy trails.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  Thanks for the constructive comment, I'll keep it in mind.

rectang 8y ago

> Which guidelines? The "In Comments" section on this page: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > They're blunt when I know people are not commenting in good faith I think that may be where things start to spin out of control. From the guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Even when we may believe that someone is not commenting in good faith, adopting the constraint that we assume good faith nevertheless leads to more invigorating, challenging exchanges. By grappling with the strongest plausible interpretation, we grow to understand the opposition better and become stronger ourselves. I hope that you can engage under those terms, because if you can we'll all be enriched by your continued participation. But if that's not for you, I hope you'll find another venue. You write well and you're good at the harsh stuff (I'm reminded of Hunter from Daily Kos), but that's not what I come to HN for. > lo and behold guess which one of us got dang's attention. Here's someone who also thinks dang is biased, but in the opposite direction. :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17656115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17656115 Dan's an effective moderator. He can't police every transgression, but under his watch the forum stays more-or-less to the liking of those of us who value exchanges under the HN guidelines. Anyway, thanks for giving a busybody like me a hearing. :) Happy trails.

kadendogthing 8y ago
Thanks for the constructive comment, I'll keep it in mind.