3 ms·

My use of the site is far more extensive than my posting history. My primary use of this site is for intellectual curiosity, as you say, and as the guidelines p

My use of the site is far more extensive than my posting history. My primary use of this site is for intellectual curiosity, as you say, and as the guidelines permit. Is "Use of HN" limited only to "Posting on HN"? Throughout my entire time with an account on HN, I've made a total of 59 comments, by my enumeration. That includes these comments to you. Throughout the over 3 years I've had an account on this site. That's less than 20 comments per year on average. I've read scores of submissions and comments. Quite literally thousands of them. For submissions alone, I've upvoted 2380. I clearly don't comment on everything I see. You say it's "fine" to "occasionally comment on the politicized topics," that "it's not an abuse of the site to occasionally talk politics." This is what I do. Consequently, I fail to see how you view my account as primarily using HN to impose on others' intellectual curiosity. I want nothing of the kind. I have simply "called out" a small number of instances of behavior that I think should be reevaluated, some instances that would impose on others' intellectual curiosity. Indeed, some patterns of behavior that others and myself truly believe are greatly detrimental to our society. And while my words may sometimes be firm, I do know others have gained value from them. Even looking to the most recent thread of comments that I participated in, a discussion in which I flat out told an individual "You're being hypocritical." (amongst other statements), I received feedback--through honest, civil, unmoderated discussion--from that individual him/herself that, yes, indeed they were being hypocritical. The only pleasure I get from discussions like that is that we've both been able to freely speak our minds, and that our intellectual curiosity is not constrained so that we cannot learn from each other, that we both come out greater at the end of it. I don't presume to know how others feel, especially when they haven't expressed a reply, or "flagged" me. Which is also why I'm surprised at being told that what I've done and have been doing is "deeply destructive," even though this is the first I'm hearing of it. Out of the few comments I've made over the years, currently 31 have a net positive "karma," with at least one other individual upvoting it, 18 have neutral karma (1 point), and 10 have net negative karma. I don't view discussions as a "war" with "sides." I seriously view discussions as an opportunity to share thoughts that I believe are worth sharing with someone, and, if they have something else to say, to learn something in the process. Occasionally I take that opportunity.

dang 8y ago
In the moderation context, "please don't use HN primarily for ideological battle" means please don't post comments that are primarily about that. Of course you can read as much as you want—everyone can. Moderation is only concerned with the writes.
- ignoramceisblis 8y ago
  So a user who is, in absolute terms, much more politically active and damaging to this site than I am, is permitted to post freely, as long as the majority of their posts are decreed by someone to be "not for ideological battle"? This is an honest question. Because the policy as you've described it so far targets the wrong users. It permits users who routinely abuse the site to promote political and ideological messages--as long as there's enough other activity to cover it up. I would like a breakdown of exactly which comments of mine have been considered ideological battle, to what extent they're considered so, and how those conclusions were reached. I believe this is fair. You stated I have "clearly" been using HN for such a purpose. Out of the now 60 total comments I've made to HN in over 3 years, with the majority of them being supported by other users, and not once before being told I've broken any guidelines, to now be told that my account is going against and has been going against guidelines is a surprise, as I stated in my previous comment.

dang 8y ago

In the moderation context, "please don't use HN primarily for ideological battle" means please don't post comments that are primarily about that. Of course you can read as much as you want—everyone can. Moderation is only concerned with the writes.

ignoramceisblis 8y ago
So a user who is, in absolute terms, much more politically active and damaging to this site than I am, is permitted to post freely, as long as the majority of their posts are decreed by someone to be "not for ideological battle"? This is an honest question. Because the policy as you've described it so far targets the wrong users. It permits users who routinely abuse the site to promote political and ideological messages--as long as there's enough other activity to cover it up. I would like a breakdown of exactly which comments of mine have been considered ideological battle, to what extent they're considered so, and how those conclusions were reached. I believe this is fair. You stated I have "clearly" been using HN for such a purpose. Out of the now 60 total comments I've made to HN in over 3 years, with the majority of them being supported by other users, and not once before being told I've broken any guidelines, to now be told that my account is going against and has been going against guidelines is a surprise, as I stated in my previous comment.