3 ms·

? How is dang so certain he (has) the correct position on anything, if he can't consider other points of view? How can he understand others actions if he will

? How is dang so certain he (has) the correct position on anything, if he can't consider other points of view? How can he understand others actions if he will not listen to their attempts to explain their motivations? He doesn't do any of that, he just states some basic, "Stop doing <value judgement about user's behavior>." No discussion, no insight gathering, nothing. He's a garbage moderator. You can literally observe it in his comment history [0]. His most recent comment (at time of writing)[1] exemplifies this perfectly: > You don't have to agree with anyone's views but this style of argument is deathly to the curious conversation we want here. No, it is not. This is simply wrong, and "this style" is dismissive and rude. But that's not up for debate, as dang has decreed it so. The only reason he writes anything at all here is to explain why the person is, to him, wrong. Zero attempt whatsoever to understand an alternative perspective. Awful, terrible moderation skills. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32640951 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32640951

tptacek 4y ago
Part of the point of having a moderator is to give the community a mechanism to make quick determinations and to keep tendentious meta-debates out of the main threads (meta-stories like this being an obvious exception). If you want to debate the moderators, mail hn@ycombinator.com.
- auggy31 4y ago
  Nothing about a moderator necessitates quickness, and what may be tendentious to you is not to someone else. In fact, quickness is a negative trait of a moderator, when their decisions are as impactful as limiting speech. And nobody said anything about debating anyone, I'm wholly uninterested in dang's perspective at this point, he's made his lack of ability in this area perfectly clear. It's also perfectly clear how little is in his toolbox to enforce his decisions however, so I suppose it's mostly a wash.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    I disagree with basically everything you said here. But, much more importantly: if you're wholly uninterested in Dan's perspective on things, this place is probably not a great hang for you.
    - auggy31 4y ago
      It’s been a fine “hang” for me for 13 years, it’ll be fine for another 13, most likely. Also I think it's the literal definition of hubris to disagree with, "what may be tendentious to you is not to someone else" but I'm guessing you don't really care about hypocritical shit like that.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        I think anything I say to you is going to generate a snarky, dismissive response, and so am opting to keep things simple.
        auggy31 4y ago
        dctoedt 4y ago
        > I think anything I say to you is going to generate a snarky, dismissive response, and so am opting to keep things simple I feel no such compunction, so: This guy seems to be hiding behind a new handle; for what reason(s), we can speculate.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - dctoedt 4y ago
        13 years, you say? That's not what your profile says — did you feel some need to create a new identity?
    - 4y ago
- Chris2048 4y ago
  > keep tendentious meta-debates out of the main threads How is removing "tendentious meta-debates" aka "controversial topics not directly related to the main thread" compatible with "On-topic: Anything .. interesting ... anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" or even "seasoned talking points aren't on topic here"? (though it does match "Avoid unrelated controversies".. Guess those are never interesting to good hackers?) > If you want to debate the moderators I think the issue is they don't want to debate the mods. Or specifically, for the mods to debate them. I feel there's a difference moderating the meta-aspects of a debate (style, relevance etc), and participating in a debate.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    You're basically lawyering the site guidelines against the person who wrote and maintains the site guidelines (not me; I'm just paraphrasing them). That's neither interesting or productive. Dan has explained over and over again, in great detail, why tendentious meta-debates are toxic to the project HN is trying to run. You are, of course, welcome not to participate in that project! But trying to convince me that the project is something other than what Dan says it is seems silly. Not to put too fine a point on it: I don't care what you think the project is, and I deeply care what Dan thinks it is.
    - Chris2048 4y ago
      By "lawyering" you mean pointing out the contradictions? Sure. You say thats not interesting, but clearly I think it is. If by project you mean whatever dang says it is, then sure it's what dang says it is. If you mean a community forum, no, dang just had an opinion. The fact that you agree with that opinion and so don't care to be convinced otherwise don't change that it's just an opinion. > Dan has explained over and over again, in great detail There may have been an explanation, but no discussion - but would you just argue that this wouldn't be interesting or productive? You're satisfied so why would you care about inconsistent modding?
Chris2048 4y ago
> he just states some basic, "Stop doing <value judgement about user's behavior>." Very often it's "stop breaking the guideline", or "stop participating in flamewars" - so not much to go on. Often the next comment is "which guideline did I break" or "What do you mean by flamewar/why is this a flamewar?" - which goes unanswered. Other times, users will participate in blatant trolling, or obvious (non subjective) rule breaking and get far more detail/response. It feels like dang/mods aren't exactly sure of what the moderation rules should be, so simply don't answer difficult questions.. That said, what is the benchmark for moderation? Reddit? The internet standard is so low, HN is great in comparison.

tptacek 4y ago

Part of the point of having a moderator is to give the community a mechanism to make quick determinations and to keep tendentious meta-debates out of the main threads (meta-stories like this being an obvious exception). If you want to debate the moderators, mail hn@ycombinator.com.

auggy31 4y ago
Nothing about a moderator necessitates quickness, and what may be tendentious to you is not to someone else. In fact, quickness is a negative trait of a moderator, when their decisions are as impactful as limiting speech. And nobody said anything about debating anyone, I'm wholly uninterested in dang's perspective at this point, he's made his lack of ability in this area perfectly clear. It's also perfectly clear how little is in his toolbox to enforce his decisions however, so I suppose it's mostly a wash.
- tptacek 4y ago
  I disagree with basically everything you said here. But, much more importantly: if you're wholly uninterested in Dan's perspective on things, this place is probably not a great hang for you.
  - auggy31 4y ago
    It’s been a fine “hang” for me for 13 years, it’ll be fine for another 13, most likely. Also I think it's the literal definition of hubris to disagree with, "what may be tendentious to you is not to someone else" but I'm guessing you don't really care about hypocritical shit like that.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      I think anything I say to you is going to generate a snarky, dismissive response, and so am opting to keep things simple.
      - auggy31 4y ago
      - dctoedt 4y ago
        > I think anything I say to you is going to generate a snarky, dismissive response, and so am opting to keep things simple I feel no such compunction, so: This guy seems to be hiding behind a new handle; for what reason(s), we can speculate.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - dctoedt 4y ago
      13 years, you say? That's not what your profile says — did you feel some need to create a new identity?
  - 4y ago
Chris2048 4y ago
> keep tendentious meta-debates out of the main threads How is removing "tendentious meta-debates" aka "controversial topics not directly related to the main thread" compatible with "On-topic: Anything .. interesting ... anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" or even "seasoned talking points aren't on topic here"? (though it does match "Avoid unrelated controversies".. Guess those are never interesting to good hackers?) > If you want to debate the moderators I think the issue is they don't want to debate the mods. Or specifically, for the mods to debate them. I feel there's a difference moderating the meta-aspects of a debate (style, relevance etc), and participating in a debate.
- tptacek 4y ago
  You're basically lawyering the site guidelines against the person who wrote and maintains the site guidelines (not me; I'm just paraphrasing them). That's neither interesting or productive. Dan has explained over and over again, in great detail, why tendentious meta-debates are toxic to the project HN is trying to run. You are, of course, welcome not to participate in that project! But trying to convince me that the project is something other than what Dan says it is seems silly. Not to put too fine a point on it: I don't care what you think the project is, and I deeply care what Dan thinks it is.
  - Chris2048 4y ago
    By "lawyering" you mean pointing out the contradictions? Sure. You say thats not interesting, but clearly I think it is. If by project you mean whatever dang says it is, then sure it's what dang says it is. If you mean a community forum, no, dang just had an opinion. The fact that you agree with that opinion and so don't care to be convinced otherwise don't change that it's just an opinion. > Dan has explained over and over again, in great detail There may have been an explanation, but no discussion - but would you just argue that this wouldn't be interesting or productive? You're satisfied so why would you care about inconsistent modding?

Chris2048 4y ago

> he just states some basic, "Stop doing <value judgement about user's behavior>." Very often it's "stop breaking the guideline", or "stop participating in flamewars" - so not much to go on. Often the next comment is "which guideline did I break" or "What do you mean by flamewar/why is this a flamewar?" - which goes unanswered. Other times, users will participate in blatant trolling, or obvious (non subjective) rule breaking and get far more detail/response. It feels like dang/mods aren't exactly sure of what the moderation rules should be, so simply don't answer difficult questions.. That said, what is the benchmark for moderation? Reddit? The internet standard is so low, HN is great in comparison.