3 ms·

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. I

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.

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.