4 ms·

@dang, your moderation is needed here. I am being flagged unjustly

dragonwriter 5y ago
Being factually true doesn't mean its a productive contribution and not the kind of low-effort dismissal discouraged by the rules (I personally don’t think it warrants flagging, but I don’t think that or downvotes are clearly unjust, either.)
- eyelovewe 5y ago
  The fact is material and pertinent. It is absolutely objectively pertinent to whether the WSJ journal is earnestly acting in good faith with a long history of anti-electrification articles. Whether you AGREE with my assessment that, no they are not a good faith actor, is perhaps an open question. My flagged comment below expressed my OPINION that the WSJ is a bad faith actor in this topic, arguably Rupert Murdoch is responsible for much of climate change denialism. However, flagging a civilly expressed opinion that has a pertinent bearing on the thread is abusing flagging for the sake of suppressing criticism.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The fact is material and pertinent. The comment would potentially be much more valuable if, besides the bare fact, it made the case for how/why that fact should be given weight in the context of the instant article. (I can't judge whether it would or not without the content of that argument, but it at least has potential.) > Whether you AGREE with my assessment that, no they are not a good faith actor, is perhaps an open question. Whether or not I agree with that is tangential to whether I would agree that pointing one fact forming (I hope only part of) the basis of that assessment with no further elaboration of its relevance to the immediate subject of discussion is a contribution up to the minimum quality standards expected on HN.
- eyelovewe 5y ago
  If flagging is abused to shut down civilly expressed imminent criticism, what is to stop me from just flagging everything I don’t like on HN? Is it not presumed that one is a good faith actor, at least initially? Are not downvotes also something one should be “reasonable” about, aka also requiring trust, community mindedness etc? Shall HN turn into a subreddit per thread, as crowds defend post “territories”?
  - robocat 5y ago
    “ Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.” as per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Sometimes the voting is unfair. However it most common that there is a reason for the voting behaviour and it is just that you are not making any effort to understand the reasons why people acting fairly can appear wrong to you. Read, watch, pay attention, and listen when someone spends their time to answer you.
dang 5y ago
I'm sorry but I can't agree that these flags are unjust. You're posting unsubstantive comments and breaking the site guidelines in other ways also. Would you mind reading them and sticking to the rules? Note, for example, the second-last one. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Being factually true doesn't mean its a productive contribution and not the kind of low-effort dismissal discouraged by the rules (I personally don’t think it warrants flagging, but I don’t think that or downvotes are clearly unjust, either.)

eyelovewe 5y ago
The fact is material and pertinent. It is absolutely objectively pertinent to whether the WSJ journal is earnestly acting in good faith with a long history of anti-electrification articles. Whether you AGREE with my assessment that, no they are not a good faith actor, is perhaps an open question. My flagged comment below expressed my OPINION that the WSJ is a bad faith actor in this topic, arguably Rupert Murdoch is responsible for much of climate change denialism. However, flagging a civilly expressed opinion that has a pertinent bearing on the thread is abusing flagging for the sake of suppressing criticism.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The fact is material and pertinent. The comment would potentially be much more valuable if, besides the bare fact, it made the case for how/why that fact should be given weight in the context of the instant article. (I can't judge whether it would or not without the content of that argument, but it at least has potential.) > Whether you AGREE with my assessment that, no they are not a good faith actor, is perhaps an open question. Whether or not I agree with that is tangential to whether I would agree that pointing one fact forming (I hope only part of) the basis of that assessment with no further elaboration of its relevance to the immediate subject of discussion is a contribution up to the minimum quality standards expected on HN.
eyelovewe 5y ago
If flagging is abused to shut down civilly expressed imminent criticism, what is to stop me from just flagging everything I don’t like on HN? Is it not presumed that one is a good faith actor, at least initially? Are not downvotes also something one should be “reasonable” about, aka also requiring trust, community mindedness etc? Shall HN turn into a subreddit per thread, as crowds defend post “territories”?
- robocat 5y ago
  “ Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.” as per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Sometimes the voting is unfair. However it most common that there is a reason for the voting behaviour and it is just that you are not making any effort to understand the reasons why people acting fairly can appear wrong to you. Read, watch, pay attention, and listen when someone spends their time to answer you.

dang 5y ago

I'm sorry but I can't agree that these flags are unjust. You're posting unsubstantive comments and breaking the site guidelines in other ways also. Would you mind reading them and sticking to the rules? Note, for example, the second-last one. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html