3 ms·

Are you also making whole all the other victims who didn't make the front page of HN? Why did you not remove the misleading statements about the gear being alw

Are you also making whole all the other victims who didn't make the front page of HN? Why did you not remove the misleading statements about the gear being always covered from the owner landing page after the first well publicized incident? https://web.archive.org/web/20190430061041/https://kitsplit.com/add-listing-landing https://web.archive.org/web/20190430061041/https://kitsplit.... (in fact, it's still there). Or the claim that "Exclusive to KitSplit members, our insurance options are full-coverage" from https://kitsplit.com/add-listing-landing https://kitsplit.com/add-listing-landing, which is front-and-center with the reality hidden far below the fold. As far as I'm concerned, you are (were?) intentionally deceiving your customers, even after it had publicly blown up in your face the last time.

dang 7y ago
Your first three paragraphs are legit criticism. Your last paragraph crosses into personal attack and breaks the site guidelines. That is not ok on this site. Would you mind (re-)reading https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and following them when posting here in the future?
- rkagerer 7y ago
  That paragraph might have been directed at the company, not the founder personally?
  - dang 7y ago
    Possibly, but given that the comment was a reply to a person using a personal name, I think the default is to interpret "you" personally. So the onus is on the replier to make the distinction if they don't mean it that way.
    - loceng 7y ago
      You don't see any pitfalls of separating people from the business they run and have control over the decisions made there? I'm curious too if you read the article and if you see any discrepancy or dishonesty of KitSplit in the presented evidence - which is what this commenter is referring/replying to in their 4th paragraph? Shame isn't inherently a bad thing: if someone does something bad and obvious like deceptive and dishonest practices, and there is proof of it - like the deception pointed out by the author - then that being pointed out has a purpose and value. Bullying for example should be shamed, no? Shaming someone for how they dress, something out of their control, their sexuality, and so on, however of course isn't okay and is harmful. I wonder do you and HN mods group all shame together or are you aware of and understand this nuanced difference? I feel for you that moderating a community is difficult, however blanket decisions like calling out all shame as illegitimate can be more harmful for more than one reason - even if it makes moderation easier because there's less consideration or feeling it out given, even if erring on the side of caution feels prudent and relieving because you're taking action vs. not taking action - quelling feelings of potential uncertainty by expressing something. In conclusion, being in a position of authority, as a mod on HN, and threatening to ban someone for expressing themselves, their anger, and legitimate highlighting of deception - which in multiple places in this thread you state and are lumping together as defending as a cause against a "culture of shame" - is highly damaging - though you're not likely to experience or see the damage it causes especially as most people aren't likely to respond under the pressure or fear because of your mod position, and they are now going to feel repressed.
      - dx7tnt 7y ago
        I had the banhammer wielded on me for a similar reason, and now understand HN is an irony free zone moderated by snowflakes. I expected so much better after being here for years.
        dang 7y ago
        I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it's not hard to get unbanned if you want to use the site as intended. You just need to email hn@ycombinator.com and say so in a good-faith way.
        dx7tnt 7y ago
        I pinkie pwomise not to be bad again or make fun of MBAs and their flaky ideas for VC backed startups
- tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
  There doesn't seem to be an edit button on that post (I assume the ability to edit times out after some short time), so I'll clarify here: Yes, that was directed at the company, and I assumed that would be clear from the context. I was responding to a post of an official speaking behalf of the company, the parts I was responding to were written as 'we' in the original post, and especially given this, I hope you'll agree that I am expecting the company and not the CEO personally to reimburse the user, which should make clear how the "you" in that post is meant.

dang 7y ago

Your first three paragraphs are legit criticism. Your last paragraph crosses into personal attack and breaks the site guidelines. That is not ok on this site. Would you mind (re-)reading https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and following them when posting here in the future?

rkagerer 7y ago
That paragraph might have been directed at the company, not the founder personally?
- dang 7y ago
  Possibly, but given that the comment was a reply to a person using a personal name, I think the default is to interpret "you" personally. So the onus is on the replier to make the distinction if they don't mean it that way.
  - loceng 7y ago
    You don't see any pitfalls of separating people from the business they run and have control over the decisions made there? I'm curious too if you read the article and if you see any discrepancy or dishonesty of KitSplit in the presented evidence - which is what this commenter is referring/replying to in their 4th paragraph? Shame isn't inherently a bad thing: if someone does something bad and obvious like deceptive and dishonest practices, and there is proof of it - like the deception pointed out by the author - then that being pointed out has a purpose and value. Bullying for example should be shamed, no? Shaming someone for how they dress, something out of their control, their sexuality, and so on, however of course isn't okay and is harmful. I wonder do you and HN mods group all shame together or are you aware of and understand this nuanced difference? I feel for you that moderating a community is difficult, however blanket decisions like calling out all shame as illegitimate can be more harmful for more than one reason - even if it makes moderation easier because there's less consideration or feeling it out given, even if erring on the side of caution feels prudent and relieving because you're taking action vs. not taking action - quelling feelings of potential uncertainty by expressing something. In conclusion, being in a position of authority, as a mod on HN, and threatening to ban someone for expressing themselves, their anger, and legitimate highlighting of deception - which in multiple places in this thread you state and are lumping together as defending as a cause against a "culture of shame" - is highly damaging - though you're not likely to experience or see the damage it causes especially as most people aren't likely to respond under the pressure or fear because of your mod position, and they are now going to feel repressed.
    - dx7tnt 7y ago
      I had the banhammer wielded on me for a similar reason, and now understand HN is an irony free zone moderated by snowflakes. I expected so much better after being here for years.
      - dang 7y ago
        I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it's not hard to get unbanned if you want to use the site as intended. You just need to email hn@ycombinator.com and say so in a good-faith way.
        dx7tnt 7y ago
        I pinkie pwomise not to be bad again or make fun of MBAs and their flaky ideas for VC backed startups
tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
There doesn't seem to be an edit button on that post (I assume the ability to edit times out after some short time), so I'll clarify here: Yes, that was directed at the company, and I assumed that would be clear from the context. I was responding to a post of an official speaking behalf of the company, the parts I was responding to were written as 'we' in the original post, and especially given this, I hope you'll agree that I am expecting the company and not the CEO personally to reimburse the user, which should make clear how the "you" in that post is meant.