3 ms·

>The idea that if you see something unmoderated, it must mean that the moderators secretly agree with it, is a monster of a non sequitur. Yes. That's what happ

>The idea that if you see something unmoderated, it must mean that the moderators secretly agree with it, is a monster of a non sequitur. Yes. That's what happens when you provide a self-publishing system. You agree to that contract whether you want to or not. And it's not just this comment. It happens all the time. >That's why the site guidelines ask you to flag bad comments I literally cannot do that. Surely you know that. >Fortunately, another user chose to follow the site guidelines and did so. You don't think it's a problem that only one other user decided to _email_ you a problem. Doesn't that indicate a problem with the site culture? I'm one person, a consumer of this site. Not a moderator. I called attention to it using the one capability given to me on this site. Saying "that's not good enough" is extremely asinine when I literally am not able to do anything else on the site.

dang 7y ago
It's trivial to get enough karma to flag posts on HN. We keep the threshold low on purpose so that anyone who wants to use HN as intended can easily cross it. The reason you haven't is not because we're somehow excluding you. It's because your many accounts consistently break the site guidelines, causing your posts to get downvoted. But you can always email us, as anyone can. The fact that you didn't shows that you're not truly concerned about keeping HN free of the abuse you're complaining about. Rather, you're using other people's abusive comments as an excuse to post abusive comments of your own, smearing the community—who don't support the dreck that shows up here, just like it shows up everywhere on the public internet—and trying to undermine it. When you imply that moderators somehow support the dreck, I don't believe you're doing so in good faith. Anyone who's been around HN as long as you have knows that's false. Rather, the name for what you're doing is poisoning the well. That is another form of trolling. Would you please stop creating accounts to break HN's guidelines with? This site is for people who sincerely want to use it as intended, and the intended use is laid out clearly at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: intellectual curiosity and kind, thoughtful discussion.
- sterileopinions 7y ago
  >The reason you haven't is not because we're somehow excluding you. I didn't say that. >It's because your many accounts consistently break the site guidelines, causing your posts to get downvoted. It's trivial as you say to get up-voted. But you do it not with substance, but with tone. HN literally has a system to negate community downvotes that typically only gets used when a mainstream HN opinion gets downvoted. Don't you even _dare_ to pretend that its some kind of filtering mechanism that works. Because HN is the last place you'd want to use to laud some kind of meritocratic democratic system. A person who basically has a fetish for the Holocaust is posting around on the site. No one flagged it, no one down-voted it, a few people called it out, and one person emailed the site moderators about it. Haha. >The fact that you didn't shows that you're not truly concerned about keeping HN free of the abuse you're complaining about. Choosing to or to not use an external communication system doesn't imply anything. Please stop using motivational fallacies to protect inconsistent, flimsy decision making. > When you imply that moderators somehow support the dreck, I don't believe you're doing so in good faith. It's not an implication. It's how self-publishing systems work. The organization can even be held legally responsible in egregious cases for allowing certain content to get published. You might in your heart of hearts be earnest about this belief, but it's not realistic and it's fairly naive. >the name for what you're doing is poisoning the well. That is another form of trolling. Usage of fallacies is not trolling. Don't say what I'm doing is trolling. You're quite literally using the fallacy you just referenced against me while pretending that I'm the one doing it, despite none of comments ascribing any kind of personal characteristic or motivation to moderators' inaction. There is no need to get so childishly personal and attempt to poorly invoke fallacies you immediately then use. That's kind of disheartening to see. >This site is for people who sincerely want to use it as intended Not that this is relevant, but there is a rather rich irony in where a site with the name Hacker in it expects its users to plainly use the site as "intended". Totally and completely ignoring the principle behind hacking: to make systems act differently than intended, whatever the motivation.

dang 7y ago

It's trivial to get enough karma to flag posts on HN. We keep the threshold low on purpose so that anyone who wants to use HN as intended can easily cross it. The reason you haven't is not because we're somehow excluding you. It's because your many accounts consistently break the site guidelines, causing your posts to get downvoted. But you can always email us, as anyone can. The fact that you didn't shows that you're not truly concerned about keeping HN free of the abuse you're complaining about. Rather, you're using other people's abusive comments as an excuse to post abusive comments of your own, smearing the community—who don't support the dreck that shows up here, just like it shows up everywhere on the public internet—and trying to undermine it. When you imply that moderators somehow support the dreck, I don't believe you're doing so in good faith. Anyone who's been around HN as long as you have knows that's false. Rather, the name for what you're doing is poisoning the well. That is another form of trolling. Would you please stop creating accounts to break HN's guidelines with? This site is for people who sincerely want to use it as intended, and the intended use is laid out clearly at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: intellectual curiosity and kind, thoughtful discussion.

sterileopinions 7y ago
>The reason you haven't is not because we're somehow excluding you. I didn't say that. >It's because your many accounts consistently break the site guidelines, causing your posts to get downvoted. It's trivial as you say to get up-voted. But you do it not with substance, but with tone. HN literally has a system to negate community downvotes that typically only gets used when a mainstream HN opinion gets downvoted. Don't you even _dare_ to pretend that its some kind of filtering mechanism that works. Because HN is the last place you'd want to use to laud some kind of meritocratic democratic system. A person who basically has a fetish for the Holocaust is posting around on the site. No one flagged it, no one down-voted it, a few people called it out, and one person emailed the site moderators about it. Haha. >The fact that you didn't shows that you're not truly concerned about keeping HN free of the abuse you're complaining about. Choosing to or to not use an external communication system doesn't imply anything. Please stop using motivational fallacies to protect inconsistent, flimsy decision making. > When you imply that moderators somehow support the dreck, I don't believe you're doing so in good faith. It's not an implication. It's how self-publishing systems work. The organization can even be held legally responsible in egregious cases for allowing certain content to get published. You might in your heart of hearts be earnest about this belief, but it's not realistic and it's fairly naive. >the name for what you're doing is poisoning the well. That is another form of trolling. Usage of fallacies is not trolling. Don't say what I'm doing is trolling. You're quite literally using the fallacy you just referenced against me while pretending that I'm the one doing it, despite none of comments ascribing any kind of personal characteristic or motivation to moderators' inaction. There is no need to get so childishly personal and attempt to poorly invoke fallacies you immediately then use. That's kind of disheartening to see. >This site is for people who sincerely want to use it as intended Not that this is relevant, but there is a rather rich irony in where a site with the name Hacker in it expects its users to plainly use the site as "intended". Totally and completely ignoring the principle behind hacking: to make systems act differently than intended, whatever the motivation.