3 ms·

What I'm understanding is that my account would be fine if I had a bunch of other posts in between my existing ones, and the other posts were all about Java opt

What I'm understanding is that my account would be fine if I had a bunch of other posts in between my existing ones, and the other posts were all about Java optimization or Apache version control or other "non-political" topics. I guess it seems kind of a strange rule. Stated another way, "If 50% or more of your posts relate to controversial/political topics, you're in violation". The posts are fine, I'm just supposed to have other posts there to reduce their proportion of the total. It seems strange to convict on the absence of certain posts. I will of course endeavor to follow the rule. It is your website after all. But just some thoughts on it: I just find social issues interesting, I don't believe like that's wrong or destructive. (If it was being aggressive or unthoughtful about them that would be an issue but I try to be thoughtful and make meaningful points.) I don't think commenting on controversies has to degrade the site. For example, the subreddit r/TheMotte has some of the best discussion on the internet and it's 100% about the culture war. I could have had an alt account that I use for more 'acceptable' topics. Many people don't want their thoughts on controversial topics to be associated with their public persona. This rule basically bans having an alt account in this way. Note that I'm not focused on one issue; I comment on lots of different issues. Yes I have a unifying philosophy but so does everyone. I think a rule against single-issue activist accounts would make more sense. In any case thanks for responding.

dang 5y ago
I know it seems like a strange rule at first glance, but I think (or hope!) it will seem less strange if you get the point being made here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20bimodal%20battle&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... Basically, there's a big gap between the type of account that uses HN primarily for political battle and the type of account that uses HN for intellectual curiosity. That's just an empirical observation. The rule is a reasonably fair way to take advantage of that observation for HN's good, since one of those poles is very much what the site is for and the other very much not. When I say your account is a borderline case, another way of putting it is that you're kind of falling in that gap. Not many accounts do that but some do. And yeah, in that context, everything you're saying here makes sense.

dang 5y ago

I know it seems like a strange rule at first glance, but I think (or hope!) it will seem less strange if you get the point being made here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20bimodal%20battle&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... Basically, there's a big gap between the type of account that uses HN primarily for political battle and the type of account that uses HN for intellectual curiosity. That's just an empirical observation. The rule is a reasonably fair way to take advantage of that observation for HN's good, since one of those poles is very much what the site is for and the other very much not. When I say your account is a borderline case, another way of putting it is that you're kind of falling in that gap. Not many accounts do that but some do. And yeah, in that context, everything you're saying here makes sense.