6 ms·

Looking at your screenshot you post elsewhere (https://ibb.co/hoSMHK https://ibb.co/hoSMHK), I have to agree with them insofar as you need to know when to quit.

Looking at your screenshot you post elsewhere (https://ibb.co/hoSMHK https://ibb.co/hoSMHK), I have to agree with them insofar as you need to know when to quit. Running a forum is hard work and everyone wants to devolve every mod decision into rules lawyering, like "well, then why wasn't this specific thing in the rules?" No, there can't be a rule for literally everything, so you're just going to have to be an adult and take it on the chin when the mods make a decision and double down on it. I completely empathize with dang's final post, that your "legalistic gambit" is a waste of everyone's time, and often the platform people like to spring off some sort of "omg the mod tyranny" campaign. That happened over 70 days ago. Maybe it's time to let it go and learn to live with the fact that your tiny comment was flagged. Looking at your post history, you've lived through much worse, respectfully.

comesee 8y ago
I disagree, our civilization is built on codified laws, otherwise dictators arbitrarily decide what is allowed and what isn't. Is that justice? You're defending injustice. Rules must be written down and clarified, if I'm wrong so is civilization.
- wild_preference 8y ago
  It's a forum with two moderators, not a civilization with a multi-tiered court justice system to interpret the laws. You're going to have to live with that. If you disagree so much, maybe it's time to go somewhere else and spare the rest of us from your permanent, belabored grudge. Like, boo hoo. Seriously. Hopefully you find something else to spend your precious time on earth worrying about.
  - comesee 8y ago
    It's the same in the way that matters, it's a social collection of humans that requires governance. If they want to improve HN they should be codifying more rules as they get more experience. Calling "not groovy" is really not helpful in helping others understand their rationale. Who's going to moderate after dang and sctb are gone? Humans are fallible.
    - wild_preference 8y ago
      Notice how abstract you're getting trying to defend yourself. It's because you know it's unreasonable, so if you speak abstractly enough, you hope you can liken your little crusade here to some axiom of civilization. Maybe you think you're Rosa Parks. That nobody else really cares will be a critical life lesson for you.
      - comesee 8y ago
        You literally said "there can't be a rule for everything" and that's not how civilization operates. Sorry you can be hostile and belittle me all you want but you haven't made an actual counter argument. Regardless of your opinion of me, the fact remains that without more codified rules, HN moderation remains arbitrary and inconsistent, and this will be more apparent when dang and sctb retire.
  - anticensor 8y ago
    Well, two active moderators (dang&sctb) and one administrator with unused moderative powers (pg).
  - jlawson 8y ago
    Some amount of randomness/inconsistency is to be expected for the reasons you're indicating. As you said, it's just some moderators, not a court system. But, when that arbitrariness always, always favors one set of viewpoints and suppresses others according to content, then in becomes a problem. That's not randomness, that's bias. Eg: Person A says controversial opinion X, person B counters with controversial opinion Y. This can lead to a flame war. But which controversial opinion gets censored? The one the mods disagree with. And the excuse it, to prevent a flame war. Which is valid. But it's always the same side of the discussion that gets silenced by power. The pre-judged outcome really drains the life and value from a lot of the most enervating discussions around here. I'd rather have read "flamewar" (as long as it's not personal) than an enforced echo chamber.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- otterley 8y ago
  This isn't a public forum; it's a private one. If you don't agree with the opinions of the moderators or the culture here, you're welcome to build a competitive site.
- scott_s 8y ago
  Codified laws are always interpreted by judges. Our legal system is not a computer program; humans are in the loop, and that is a feature, not a bug.
cbkeller 8y ago
The "legalistic gambit" is definitely a real thing. I've just learned the other day that there's a neologism for this: "sealioning" [1], defined as > pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning
- comesee 8y ago
  Sounds like an unfounded presumption of bad faith.
  - DonHopkins 8y ago
    Like presuming everyone male will act just like the chimpanzees in your study? Do you have any studies of female chimpanzees you want to claim predict the behavior of all the women on HN?
    - comesee 8y ago
      It's an observed and documented behavioral pattern, it's not a presumption of motive. No reasonable interpretation of my original comment implies that one should assume all males will act like chimpanzees. Interesting and productive discussion can't be had without paying attention to the nuance of what is being discussed.
      - DonHopkins 8y ago
        Observed and documented behavior in chimpanzees or humans? So where's your observation based documentation that humans behave the same as chimpanzees? Or is your point just baseless name calling and dehumanization: that you think the humans on HN behave like chimps, but you don't have any proof of that, just proof of how chimps behave? If you just want to call people chimps, then just call people chimps and take your licks for that, but stop beating around the bushes like such a chimp. Looks like you blew a seal! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ETlTZoF1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ETlTZoF1E
emmelaich 8y ago
Concur .. From the OSS (CIA) Simple Sabotage Manual: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/CleanedUOSSSimpleSabotage_sm.pdf https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/... (1) Insist on doing everything through"channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions. (2) Make "speeches," Talk as frequently as possible and at great length., Illustrate your. points.. by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate "patriotic" comments (3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible - never less than five. (4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible. (5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions. . . .
DenisM 8y ago
The full thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17517514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17517514 That was an interesting comment, it's a pity it went out like this.
tinkerteller 8y ago
While I don’t agree with @comesee, I don’t see his comments are offensive/vulgar language. Even the parent comment states very short and simple fact: > dang called me a troll after I simply asked him exactly what it was about my comment that warranted it being removed. Why do you think this tiny little comment worthy of immediate massive downvotes so that no one even can upvote it any more? Is it your expectation that people commenting here must submit themselves to popular opinion? Is diverging from group think or disagreeing with mods punishable by immediate shadow banning?
- yesenadam 8y ago
  1. Because the comment didn't stop there. Why leave off the bit on the end? Because it would ruin your case? 2. Because, with what I've learnt of dang, the comment you quoted is certain to be not the whole story, to the point of being false. I'd wager a lot of money on that.
  - tinkerteller 8y ago
    Hugh? “So, no thanks actually.” part was so important for you? I see how people like you and others have taken up to be the judge and jury and hang anyone who diverges from the echo chamber. It’s quite a shame that people who would like them to identify themselves as hackers have turned in to moral police and suppress any minority opinions however respectfully presented. Hope is that a new website would comes along as replacement someday that protects freedoms of opinion, expression and speech from this self-righteous crowd. Fun fact: there are zero suppressions for any comments praising the mods in this thread. Now go read the definition of “echo chamber”.
    - DonHopkins 8y ago
      Yeah, the whole country is an echo chamber right now. Everybody saying "Thanks for this", "Thanks for that", "Thank you", "Thank you too", "Why, you're welcome", "Here, have something to eat", "Pass the turkey please", "Here, have some more turkey!", "This is excellent turkey, thank you!", "You're welcome!"

comesee 8y ago

I disagree, our civilization is built on codified laws, otherwise dictators arbitrarily decide what is allowed and what isn't. Is that justice? You're defending injustice. Rules must be written down and clarified, if I'm wrong so is civilization.

wild_preference 8y ago
It's a forum with two moderators, not a civilization with a multi-tiered court justice system to interpret the laws. You're going to have to live with that. If you disagree so much, maybe it's time to go somewhere else and spare the rest of us from your permanent, belabored grudge. Like, boo hoo. Seriously. Hopefully you find something else to spend your precious time on earth worrying about.
- comesee 8y ago
  It's the same in the way that matters, it's a social collection of humans that requires governance. If they want to improve HN they should be codifying more rules as they get more experience. Calling "not groovy" is really not helpful in helping others understand their rationale. Who's going to moderate after dang and sctb are gone? Humans are fallible.
  - wild_preference 8y ago
    Notice how abstract you're getting trying to defend yourself. It's because you know it's unreasonable, so if you speak abstractly enough, you hope you can liken your little crusade here to some axiom of civilization. Maybe you think you're Rosa Parks. That nobody else really cares will be a critical life lesson for you.
    - comesee 8y ago
      You literally said "there can't be a rule for everything" and that's not how civilization operates. Sorry you can be hostile and belittle me all you want but you haven't made an actual counter argument. Regardless of your opinion of me, the fact remains that without more codified rules, HN moderation remains arbitrary and inconsistent, and this will be more apparent when dang and sctb retire.
- anticensor 8y ago
  Well, two active moderators (dang&sctb) and one administrator with unused moderative powers (pg).
- jlawson 8y ago
  Some amount of randomness/inconsistency is to be expected for the reasons you're indicating. As you said, it's just some moderators, not a court system. But, when that arbitrariness always, always favors one set of viewpoints and suppresses others according to content, then in becomes a problem. That's not randomness, that's bias. Eg: Person A says controversial opinion X, person B counters with controversial opinion Y. This can lead to a flame war. But which controversial opinion gets censored? The one the mods disagree with. And the excuse it, to prevent a flame war. Which is valid. But it's always the same side of the discussion that gets silenced by power. The pre-judged outcome really drains the life and value from a lot of the most enervating discussions around here. I'd rather have read "flamewar" (as long as it's not personal) than an enforced echo chamber.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
otterley 8y ago
This isn't a public forum; it's a private one. If you don't agree with the opinions of the moderators or the culture here, you're welcome to build a competitive site.
scott_s 8y ago
Codified laws are always interpreted by judges. Our legal system is not a computer program; humans are in the loop, and that is a feature, not a bug.

cbkeller 8y ago

The "legalistic gambit" is definitely a real thing. I've just learned the other day that there's a neologism for this: "sealioning" [1], defined as > pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning

comesee 8y ago
Sounds like an unfounded presumption of bad faith.
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  Like presuming everyone male will act just like the chimpanzees in your study? Do you have any studies of female chimpanzees you want to claim predict the behavior of all the women on HN?
  - comesee 8y ago
    It's an observed and documented behavioral pattern, it's not a presumption of motive. No reasonable interpretation of my original comment implies that one should assume all males will act like chimpanzees. Interesting and productive discussion can't be had without paying attention to the nuance of what is being discussed.
    - DonHopkins 8y ago
      Observed and documented behavior in chimpanzees or humans? So where's your observation based documentation that humans behave the same as chimpanzees? Or is your point just baseless name calling and dehumanization: that you think the humans on HN behave like chimps, but you don't have any proof of that, just proof of how chimps behave? If you just want to call people chimps, then just call people chimps and take your licks for that, but stop beating around the bushes like such a chimp. Looks like you blew a seal! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ETlTZoF1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ETlTZoF1E

emmelaich 8y ago

Concur .. From the OSS (CIA) Simple Sabotage Manual: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/CleanedUOSSSimpleSabotage_sm.pdf https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/... (1) Insist on doing everything through"channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions. (2) Make "speeches," Talk as frequently as possible and at great length., Illustrate your. points.. by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate "patriotic" comments (3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible - never less than five. (4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible. (5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions. . . .

DenisM 8y ago

The full thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17517514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17517514 That was an interesting comment, it's a pity it went out like this.

tinkerteller 8y ago

While I don’t agree with @comesee, I don’t see his comments are offensive/vulgar language. Even the parent comment states very short and simple fact: > dang called me a troll after I simply asked him exactly what it was about my comment that warranted it being removed. Why do you think this tiny little comment worthy of immediate massive downvotes so that no one even can upvote it any more? Is it your expectation that people commenting here must submit themselves to popular opinion? Is diverging from group think or disagreeing with mods punishable by immediate shadow banning?

yesenadam 8y ago
1. Because the comment didn't stop there. Why leave off the bit on the end? Because it would ruin your case? 2. Because, with what I've learnt of dang, the comment you quoted is certain to be not the whole story, to the point of being false. I'd wager a lot of money on that.
- tinkerteller 8y ago
  Hugh? “So, no thanks actually.” part was so important for you? I see how people like you and others have taken up to be the judge and jury and hang anyone who diverges from the echo chamber. It’s quite a shame that people who would like them to identify themselves as hackers have turned in to moral police and suppress any minority opinions however respectfully presented. Hope is that a new website would comes along as replacement someday that protects freedoms of opinion, expression and speech from this self-righteous crowd. Fun fact: there are zero suppressions for any comments praising the mods in this thread. Now go read the definition of “echo chamber”.
  - DonHopkins 8y ago
    Yeah, the whole country is an echo chamber right now. Everybody saying "Thanks for this", "Thanks for that", "Thank you", "Thank you too", "Why, you're welcome", "Here, have something to eat", "Pass the turkey please", "Here, have some more turkey!", "This is excellent turkey, thank you!", "You're welcome!"