6 ms·

> "The fact that it's the top post is the most questionable thing here, it seems pinned to the top." I thought he might have pinned it, but that isn't the case

by grzm 5y ago

> "The fact that it's the top post is the most questionable thing here, it seems pinned to the top." I thought he might have pinned it, but that isn't the case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27401409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27401409 > "I certainly didn't intend it to be the top comment; that was entirely by upvotes."

neonological 5y ago
I mean he can lie right? Like I said, it's a conflict of interest. Most of the things I remarked on are 50/50 in the sense that I'm only 50% sure something sketchy is going on, worth remarking on, but I am not confirming anything. But Dangs post here looks like a freaking announcement where the intention is to indeed pin it at the top of the thread with fake upvotes or whatever mechanism they use with this site. This one is a 75/25 for me, with a 75% chance he is lying and a 25% chance he didn't pin it.
- grzm 5y ago
  > "I mean he can lie right?" If you're not willing to engage with him in good faith, I have a hard time understanding why you’re commenting in this thread. Have a good evening.
  - neonological 5y ago
    Giving someone with a conflict of interest good faith is extremely unwise. I advise even for you never to do it. In essence you can say my faith in him is 50% not 100% as good faith seems to imply. So with 50% faith, engagement is still has value. I never met a person who never lied, so every single person I've ever talked to in my life I technically never had 100% good faith towards. I expect everyone to lie and be untrustworthy at some point. For some people it's big things, for other people it's minor white lies. For someone with a conflict of interest I'd be more careful. Additionally even someone completely untrustworthy can still be communicated with. You can still glean information from such a person by observing his actions. For example if dang censors this thread by deleting the whole thing, that would say a lot. Him not deleting the thread also says a lot. What I don't understand about you is how you can say you don't "understand" something and then suddenly say "good evening" as if you're leaving. Wouldn't the goal be for you to "stay" and "understand" Or is the goal simply to debate and win or leave if you can't win?
- ohyeshedid 5y ago
  So instead of good faith conversation, you just opted for conspiracy babble?
  - neonological 5y ago
    No instead of blind faith I choose to not trust someone with a conflict of interest. You choose to give him your blind faith and call any form of doubt a conspiracy bubble.
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      You literally ignore the basic facts that this thread wasn't deleted/flagged. He didn't pin his comment as you claimed multiple times either. It's not blind faith, but good faith based on Dang's > decade long track record on HN as moderator.
      - neonological 5y ago
        He's probably not deleting or flagging anything because he's aware it will make him look biased. This is a common strategy. Dang picking and choosing only to censor the most insidious things remains an open possibility. Also, what decade long track record? You have a record of posts that were deleted or censored? That would be a track record. But guess what? none exists. That's a fact. All I'm saying is that a conflict of interest exists and because of this conflict of interest, dangs comment is pure sketch. Am I going to let my neighbor borrow a million dollars just because he has good credit? No. It would be unwise to do so and you blindly trusting dang is highly, highly unwise. All forms of faith are blindness. I claimed multiple times that it looks like this was pinned. Whether it was actually pinned is open for debate. So you make a claim it wasn't pinned, why don't you prove it with something other than blind faith in dang saying he never pinned it.
        NicoJuicy 5y ago
        You are making the accusations. In the court of law, it's up to you to prove it and you obviously can't. You're constantly making accusations without any proof.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by grzm 5y ago

neonological 5y ago

I mean he can lie right? Like I said, it's a conflict of interest. Most of the things I remarked on are 50/50 in the sense that I'm only 50% sure something sketchy is going on, worth remarking on, but I am not confirming anything. But Dangs post here looks like a freaking announcement where the intention is to indeed pin it at the top of the thread with fake upvotes or whatever mechanism they use with this site. This one is a 75/25 for me, with a 75% chance he is lying and a 25% chance he didn't pin it.

grzm 5y ago
> "I mean he can lie right?" If you're not willing to engage with him in good faith, I have a hard time understanding why you’re commenting in this thread. Have a good evening.
- neonological 5y ago
  Giving someone with a conflict of interest good faith is extremely unwise. I advise even for you never to do it. In essence you can say my faith in him is 50% not 100% as good faith seems to imply. So with 50% faith, engagement is still has value. I never met a person who never lied, so every single person I've ever talked to in my life I technically never had 100% good faith towards. I expect everyone to lie and be untrustworthy at some point. For some people it's big things, for other people it's minor white lies. For someone with a conflict of interest I'd be more careful. Additionally even someone completely untrustworthy can still be communicated with. You can still glean information from such a person by observing his actions. For example if dang censors this thread by deleting the whole thing, that would say a lot. Him not deleting the thread also says a lot. What I don't understand about you is how you can say you don't "understand" something and then suddenly say "good evening" as if you're leaving. Wouldn't the goal be for you to "stay" and "understand" Or is the goal simply to debate and win or leave if you can't win?
ohyeshedid 5y ago
So instead of good faith conversation, you just opted for conspiracy babble?
- neonological 5y ago
  No instead of blind faith I choose to not trust someone with a conflict of interest. You choose to give him your blind faith and call any form of doubt a conspiracy bubble.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    You literally ignore the basic facts that this thread wasn't deleted/flagged. He didn't pin his comment as you claimed multiple times either. It's not blind faith, but good faith based on Dang's > decade long track record on HN as moderator.
    - neonological 5y ago
      He's probably not deleting or flagging anything because he's aware it will make him look biased. This is a common strategy. Dang picking and choosing only to censor the most insidious things remains an open possibility. Also, what decade long track record? You have a record of posts that were deleted or censored? That would be a track record. But guess what? none exists. That's a fact. All I'm saying is that a conflict of interest exists and because of this conflict of interest, dangs comment is pure sketch. Am I going to let my neighbor borrow a million dollars just because he has good credit? No. It would be unwise to do so and you blindly trusting dang is highly, highly unwise. All forms of faith are blindness. I claimed multiple times that it looks like this was pinned. Whether it was actually pinned is open for debate. So you make a claim it wasn't pinned, why don't you prove it with something other than blind faith in dang saying he never pinned it.
      - NicoJuicy 5y ago
        You are making the accusations. In the court of law, it's up to you to prove it and you obviously can't. You're constantly making accusations without any proof.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]