6 ms·

Illegal can have multiple definitions, and some advertisement can be illegal. No, it's not a shame. Mocking someone because their wording is imprecise is a bit

by ratww 4y ago

Illegal can have multiple definitions, and some advertisement can be illegal. No, it's not a shame. Mocking someone because their wording is imprecise is a bit shameful, though. Also against the HN guidelines. You can do better.

braingenious 4y ago
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  Humor is fine and accepted here - but in your pedantic mockery, I couldn't find something to laugh.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    Sorry to hear that you didn’t like the first sentence of my post. Do you have any opinions about the following sentences about spamming the mods of a big website? (You can just respond “no”)
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      My opinion is, that apparently you like shady drug advertisement and you like to fight anyone who fights it. Have fun with that.
      - braingenious 4y ago
        So no I haven’t expressed any opinion about drug advertisements at all, in any way. It’s a bit of a bummer that my poking fun at a (from my perspective as an adult) misguided naive spammer is seen as the same thing as supporting crime. Serious question: Is everybody that would consider this individual, for example, a “fucking idiot that got predictably banned” also a supporter of crime? (You can just respond “yes”)
        hutzlibu 4y ago
        Are you aware that the style your are posting, is very close to trolling? In either way, I think you have it all backward, maybe intentionally. Op did spam fighting. And was banned for it. (Or is LinkedIn nowdays a market plattform for drugs?) But what your point actually is, is not entirely clear to me. But it is not close to arguing in good faith, which would be the style of discussion I prefer around here.
        braingenious 4y ago
        So yes Sorry that “trolling” means “disagreeing with me” that must suck. Thankfully that’s not an issue I have. Why is it so important that we elevate the experience of a person that objectively used linkedin wrong and was kicked out? What do you get out of maintaining your position and siding with the backseat modding? Are you looking for modding work?
        hutzlibu 4y ago
        Since modding work would require me to deal with people like you all day long, hell no. I was actually just trying to give you an advice, maybe for self reflexion, to help you understand, why your posts are not welcome here. You are free to decline that advice and I do not feel responsible for you and have actually other things to deal with.
        braingenious 4y ago
        I’ll try explaining this again, as someone who used to moderate content professionally. There are certain groups of users that you generally _HAVE_ to ban for a functioning community. Spammers, scammers, criminals, nazis and… so as to not offend you, “people that apparently lack fundamental understanding of, well, anything” This last group is often the worst group to deal with because while they’re not directly harming the community they are sucking up your time that could be spent banning pedophiles or identity thieves or drug dealers. They often suck up an immense amount of time by filling up your reports queue and are sure that their issue deserves your immediate attention, and if you don’t drop what you’re doing and address their issues instantly, they complain. This means you have to take more time away from moderating to field emails in addition to de-cluttering your queue. It is absolutely crucial to ban these types of spammers, otherwise you can’t do anything productive. Generally this type of ban is temporary unless the self-appointed mod is particularly egregious. And then there is a subset of these people: let’s call them “crusaders.” This group will make as much noise as possible offsite in order to Own The Mods. They might even invent a conspiracy theory about a shadowy underground group that has it out for them. OP could have reported one account and included a note saying “this phenomenon is happening when you search this keyword.” They did not do that. They decided to tackle the issue themselves. When their mod queue spam got them banned, they whined as publicly as possible, which takes up even more time that could’ve been spent actually removing drug dealers. The inclusion of “illegal imagery” in the complaint was factually wrong, and since moderators have to deal with a LOT of reports, it absolutely makes sense why this was ignored. When you say “illegal imagery”, in some cases that means child pornography or state secrets or any number of things that are meaningful to somebody whose job it is to moderate content. So to summarize: I am certainly not the only person to consider this person a “fucking idiot”, I’m just the only one that said that on here.
- ratww 4y ago
  The problem is not humour, and I didn't say that anywhere, but rather the sarcastic pedantry at the expense of other people who might not be native speakers. Again, humour is not a problem, but your post is also not funny. I explained it to you in my message. You're clearly having trouble understanding other people on this website, since OP's post is not about his complaints, like you insist, but rather his account. So I'd suggest maybe quit the mockery since you're not looking too smart yourself. Illegal can definitely mean different things in the context of images: illegal to possess (child pornography), illegal to copy (some documents) or illegal to be an advertisement (drugs). EDIT: I don't give a damn about "LinkedIn moderators" or "drug advertisement" and nowhere did I indicate I care enough to have a discussion about this. I literally couldn't care less about this subject or what you think about it.

by ratww 4y ago

braingenious 4y ago

hutzlibu 4y ago
Humor is fine and accepted here - but in your pedantic mockery, I couldn't find something to laugh.
- braingenious 4y ago
  Sorry to hear that you didn’t like the first sentence of my post. Do you have any opinions about the following sentences about spamming the mods of a big website? (You can just respond “no”)
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    My opinion is, that apparently you like shady drug advertisement and you like to fight anyone who fights it. Have fun with that.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      So no I haven’t expressed any opinion about drug advertisements at all, in any way. It’s a bit of a bummer that my poking fun at a (from my perspective as an adult) misguided naive spammer is seen as the same thing as supporting crime. Serious question: Is everybody that would consider this individual, for example, a “fucking idiot that got predictably banned” also a supporter of crime? (You can just respond “yes”)
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        Are you aware that the style your are posting, is very close to trolling? In either way, I think you have it all backward, maybe intentionally. Op did spam fighting. And was banned for it. (Or is LinkedIn nowdays a market plattform for drugs?) But what your point actually is, is not entirely clear to me. But it is not close to arguing in good faith, which would be the style of discussion I prefer around here.
        braingenious 4y ago
        So yes Sorry that “trolling” means “disagreeing with me” that must suck. Thankfully that’s not an issue I have. Why is it so important that we elevate the experience of a person that objectively used linkedin wrong and was kicked out? What do you get out of maintaining your position and siding with the backseat modding? Are you looking for modding work?
        hutzlibu 4y ago
        Since modding work would require me to deal with people like you all day long, hell no. I was actually just trying to give you an advice, maybe for self reflexion, to help you understand, why your posts are not welcome here. You are free to decline that advice and I do not feel responsible for you and have actually other things to deal with.
        braingenious 4y ago
        I’ll try explaining this again, as someone who used to moderate content professionally. There are certain groups of users that you generally _HAVE_ to ban for a functioning community. Spammers, scammers, criminals, nazis and… so as to not offend you, “people that apparently lack fundamental understanding of, well, anything” This last group is often the worst group to deal with because while they’re not directly harming the community they are sucking up your time that could be spent banning pedophiles or identity thieves or drug dealers. They often suck up an immense amount of time by filling up your reports queue and are sure that their issue deserves your immediate attention, and if you don’t drop what you’re doing and address their issues instantly, they complain. This means you have to take more time away from moderating to field emails in addition to de-cluttering your queue. It is absolutely crucial to ban these types of spammers, otherwise you can’t do anything productive. Generally this type of ban is temporary unless the self-appointed mod is particularly egregious. And then there is a subset of these people: let’s call them “crusaders.” This group will make as much noise as possible offsite in order to Own The Mods. They might even invent a conspiracy theory about a shadowy underground group that has it out for them. OP could have reported one account and included a note saying “this phenomenon is happening when you search this keyword.” They did not do that. They decided to tackle the issue themselves. When their mod queue spam got them banned, they whined as publicly as possible, which takes up even more time that could’ve been spent actually removing drug dealers. The inclusion of “illegal imagery” in the complaint was factually wrong, and since moderators have to deal with a LOT of reports, it absolutely makes sense why this was ignored. When you say “illegal imagery”, in some cases that means child pornography or state secrets or any number of things that are meaningful to somebody whose job it is to moderate content. So to summarize: I am certainly not the only person to consider this person a “fucking idiot”, I’m just the only one that said that on here.
ratww 4y ago
The problem is not humour, and I didn't say that anywhere, but rather the sarcastic pedantry at the expense of other people who might not be native speakers. Again, humour is not a problem, but your post is also not funny. I explained it to you in my message. You're clearly having trouble understanding other people on this website, since OP's post is not about his complaints, like you insist, but rather his account. So I'd suggest maybe quit the mockery since you're not looking too smart yourself. Illegal can definitely mean different things in the context of images: illegal to possess (child pornography), illegal to copy (some documents) or illegal to be an advertisement (drugs). EDIT: I don't give a damn about "LinkedIn moderators" or "drug advertisement" and nowhere did I indicate I care enough to have a discussion about this. I literally couldn't care less about this subject or what you think about it.