4 ms·
the comment was explicitly downranked by a "super-mod", not downvoted by regular users > Not sure if I can disclose further than that. how hypocrite of you to
by ushakov 5y ago
the comment was explicitly downranked by a "super-mod", not downvoted by regular users
> Not sure if I can disclose further than that.
how hypocrite of you to confirm you know more, but don't want to give out any information
why are you confirming then?
- oefrha 5y ago> by a "super-mod" You have a very curious definition of super-mod. One would assume a super-mod needs to be a mod first. > confirm you know more, but don't want to give out any information People are sometimes entrusted with non-public information they aren’t at liberty to disclose, at least without asking for explicit permission first. Still, when they see false accusations thrown around they sometimes would like to do something. I thought this is a forum for adults, that much should be obvious.
- ushakov 5y agothe definition doesn't matter what matters is that there's a selected group of users, who can leverage capabilities unavailable and unknown to anybody else in the group again, if you won't be disclosing any info, why do you mention that you have anything to disclose?
- Brian_K_White 5y agoHow many times do they have to hint that the set of people is not limited to users of any stripe. They've said enough, and there simply are situations where that's all you can say, and it's neither pointless nor wrong, nor even unusual or all that remarkable. It's common even.
- ushakov 5y agohow common? the mods refuse to answer that maybe it’s just 5 people, who knows?
- Brian_K_White 5y agoAs common as everyone who ever worked on any software or IT system. holy cow
- Brian_K_White 5y agoIt's interesting and useful to me merely to be given the heads up that it's possible to hack the system. The details would be even better, but I can think of at least a few ways a person might become aware of a fact like that without being able or morally obligated to disclose more than that heads-up, and without even themselves having necessarily ever done anything wrong.
- oefrha 5y agoIt’s not a hack, it’s part of the moderation system, an answer to the million-dollar question: how do you scale dang?
- Brian_K_White 5y agoThey said, perfectly clearly, that normal moderator or indeed any user action is not the only way for a person to cause this action to happen. It's not the DaVinci code.
- oefrha 5y agoWho’s they? I’m under the impression we’re discussing what I said, and I said > without the involvement of a “super-mod” or anyone affiliated with YC.
- oefrha 5y agoUnrelated, this will be my last comment on this topic: let me observe how absurd the original claim “you are not allowed to criticise Fig here” is, when most of the top level comments in the original discussion were negative, without getting moderated. Does moderation occasionally misfire? Sure. (No comment on whether I think it misfired that time.) Are over-emotional users harmful to the quality of discussions? Yes.
- Brian_K_White 5y agoThen are you using some limited definition of hack that only includes breaking someone's password? I was not. Substitute the word perturb for hack if you will.