5 ms·

HN is one of the few communities where I've had scenarios where I've gotten into a spirited discussion, been gently told to cool off (or gotten a temporary rate

HN is one of the few communities where I've had scenarios where I've gotten into a spirited discussion, been gently told to cool off (or gotten a temporary rate limit), taken a step back and realized, you know what? I was not interacting in the spirit of the community. Of course, the community is no more immune than any other regarding group think or rough edges. But on the whole, I've found the level of discourse to impressively high quality over time, and I've been posting and reading here on one account or another for over a decade. It's not just the level of discourse that is impressive, but its prolonged longevity. I think it can only have occurred from a very thoughtful approach to moderation; something I immediately miss when I step into other less curated forums such as Reddit and Twitter, where I can find the interesting content in the discourse, but laden with significantly more noise and significantly less thoughtfulness. Thanks dang!

klabb3 3y ago
Agreed. But this isn’t just the top-down moderation, no matter how much of demi-god dang is. My experience is that HN users “moderate” each other, when appropriate, to some degree. I’ve told others they’re over the line and I’ve been told myself, in a respectful manner. This tends to suppress fires early before they become flame wars. So I think while dang does excellent work, the fact that it’s transparent and most respect that, people voluntarily self-align and help out. Otoh, in places where mods are assholes or automated, people don’t care about the spirit of the rules at all.
- lolinder 3y ago
  dang's biggest contribution is setting the example. You can see it in this very submission—his reactions to pretty severe criticism in the subthread above are universally calm and measured, even when the other party gets quite aggressive. And he's also quick to talk down people who think they're defending him and/or HN but are doing so in an aggressive way. He's the same way when he's moderating, and I've definitely patterned my own pseudo-moderating comments after what I've seen him do.
  - Sabinus 3y ago
    I completely agree. His conduct and replies are absolutely top notch. I'm in awe of his commitment.
- slim 3y ago
  I think people are able to moderate themselves because dang is enforcing a tone. you pick up the HN tone over here. and that tone puts the necessary boundaries to have a meaningful discussion. for example I find the requests for proofs quite funny over here. it's never "source?", there's always a couple of words added to them to adjust the tone. most of the time there's no answer, but sometimes there's is a delightful come back with well researched sources, demonstrating the champion was well prepared and the challenger had been trapped :)
goodbyesf 3y ago
> HN is one of the few communities where I've had scenarios where I've gotten into a spirited discussion, been gently told to cool off (or gotten a temporary rate limit), taken a step back and realized, you know what? I was not interacting in the spirit of the community. Not the spirit of the 'community', the spirit of the company. The community didn't set the guidelines. The company did. It's a private company so it's their right. Also, what you experienced is a form of social/behaviorial engineering. It's what happens in cults, when the leader admonishes a follower for hurting the group, collective or community by breaking the group's rules. Of course the group doesn't make any rules, the leader does. The stubborn or independent minded tend to fight against leader and get banned. But most people are docile, blame themselves and rejoin the cult becoming even more fanatic than the leader. > Thanks dang! They even come to love the dear leader. > something I immediately miss when I step into other less curated forums such as Reddit and Twitter It isn't less curated. It's even more curated using the same dark arts and patterns of social engineering. It's just that reddit and twitter have many more users. If this 'community' grew to the size of reddit and twitter, it would be a much different place. Edit: If you ever wonder if social engineering works, read the comments in this post. Nothing 'hacker' about it.
- _gabe_ 3y ago
  > Not the spirit of the 'community', the spirit of the company. The spirit of the company aligns with most people's basic ethics and morality. When that's the case, having an exemplary moderator just reemphasizes the basic ethics that most people already believe: "I should treat others with respect, and attribute any unintended harm with ignorance rather than malice". Sure, we don't all believe that. But most people think that at the very minimum, it's good to treat other people well. The difference with a cult is apparent looking at the definition. Google gives me this: * a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. * a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. You could argue there's a weird veneration of dang, which I do find kind of odd, but most people wouldn't consider "treat others with respect" as strange or sinister.
  - goodbyesf 3y ago
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> I think it can only have occurred from a very thoughtful approach to moderation I agree. I don't think I've ever seen a reply from dang that I didn't agree with. I agreed with him even in the times he replied to me. I'm not sure if I succeeded in taking the advice to heart but I did listen and try. Thanks dang.
- kergonath 3y ago
  > I agreed with him even in the times he replied to me. I am just reacting to that bit because I think it is important (though I agree about the rest). This is a place where a reply is not a counterpoint by default, and where people can have a discussion even if they partially agree, stupid as it sounds. I realised this a while ago, reading someone who was confused that a reply they got was not an argument against them or what they were saying, but instead just someone chipping in their perspective, which was neither contradiction nor approval. Most of online discussions are very adversarial or mindless piling on.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Usually, when you see dang replying to someone, he's reminding them of the HN guidelines and very gently and patiently explaining that they're violating said guidelines. The implication I tried to make was that I had violated the guidelines at least once, dang had replied to me and I had agreed with him that I was in the wrong. I don't disagree with your observation though. I have developed this habit of explicitly saying "I agree" before elaborating to defend against such misinterpretations of intent.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  well, there's 2 forms of disagreement. I never felt like I was off put by any of dang's comments that I read. AKA a disagreement of tone (in the words of The Big Lebowski: "You're not wrong, Walter. You're an asshole!). He feels professional and won't devolve into flaming like other mods on other sites. He makes his points and lets his sourcing and historical knowledge talk instead of insults or appeals to authority. Of course there's plenty of times where I disagree philosophically, and that's fine. At the end of the day I'll never fully agree with any one person. I just simply don't want to be called any number of insults you'd hear elsewhere if you dare not tow the line perfectly.

klabb3 3y ago

Agreed. But this isn’t just the top-down moderation, no matter how much of demi-god dang is. My experience is that HN users “moderate” each other, when appropriate, to some degree. I’ve told others they’re over the line and I’ve been told myself, in a respectful manner. This tends to suppress fires early before they become flame wars. So I think while dang does excellent work, the fact that it’s transparent and most respect that, people voluntarily self-align and help out. Otoh, in places where mods are assholes or automated, people don’t care about the spirit of the rules at all.

lolinder 3y ago
dang's biggest contribution is setting the example. You can see it in this very submission—his reactions to pretty severe criticism in the subthread above are universally calm and measured, even when the other party gets quite aggressive. And he's also quick to talk down people who think they're defending him and/or HN but are doing so in an aggressive way. He's the same way when he's moderating, and I've definitely patterned my own pseudo-moderating comments after what I've seen him do.
- Sabinus 3y ago
  I completely agree. His conduct and replies are absolutely top notch. I'm in awe of his commitment.
slim 3y ago
I think people are able to moderate themselves because dang is enforcing a tone. you pick up the HN tone over here. and that tone puts the necessary boundaries to have a meaningful discussion. for example I find the requests for proofs quite funny over here. it's never "source?", there's always a couple of words added to them to adjust the tone. most of the time there's no answer, but sometimes there's is a delightful come back with well researched sources, demonstrating the champion was well prepared and the challenger had been trapped :)

goodbyesf 3y ago

> HN is one of the few communities where I've had scenarios where I've gotten into a spirited discussion, been gently told to cool off (or gotten a temporary rate limit), taken a step back and realized, you know what? I was not interacting in the spirit of the community. Not the spirit of the 'community', the spirit of the company. The community didn't set the guidelines. The company did. It's a private company so it's their right. Also, what you experienced is a form of social/behaviorial engineering. It's what happens in cults, when the leader admonishes a follower for hurting the group, collective or community by breaking the group's rules. Of course the group doesn't make any rules, the leader does. The stubborn or independent minded tend to fight against leader and get banned. But most people are docile, blame themselves and rejoin the cult becoming even more fanatic than the leader. > Thanks dang! They even come to love the dear leader. > something I immediately miss when I step into other less curated forums such as Reddit and Twitter It isn't less curated. It's even more curated using the same dark arts and patterns of social engineering. It's just that reddit and twitter have many more users. If this 'community' grew to the size of reddit and twitter, it would be a much different place. Edit: If you ever wonder if social engineering works, read the comments in this post. Nothing 'hacker' about it.

_gabe_ 3y ago
> Not the spirit of the 'community', the spirit of the company. The spirit of the company aligns with most people's basic ethics and morality. When that's the case, having an exemplary moderator just reemphasizes the basic ethics that most people already believe: "I should treat others with respect, and attribute any unintended harm with ignorance rather than malice". Sure, we don't all believe that. But most people think that at the very minimum, it's good to treat other people well. The difference with a cult is apparent looking at the definition. Google gives me this: * a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. * a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. You could argue there's a weird veneration of dang, which I do find kind of odd, but most people wouldn't consider "treat others with respect" as strange or sinister.
- goodbyesf 3y ago

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> I think it can only have occurred from a very thoughtful approach to moderation I agree. I don't think I've ever seen a reply from dang that I didn't agree with. I agreed with him even in the times he replied to me. I'm not sure if I succeeded in taking the advice to heart but I did listen and try. Thanks dang.

kergonath 3y ago
> I agreed with him even in the times he replied to me. I am just reacting to that bit because I think it is important (though I agree about the rest). This is a place where a reply is not a counterpoint by default, and where people can have a discussion even if they partially agree, stupid as it sounds. I realised this a while ago, reading someone who was confused that a reply they got was not an argument against them or what they were saying, but instead just someone chipping in their perspective, which was neither contradiction nor approval. Most of online discussions are very adversarial or mindless piling on.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Usually, when you see dang replying to someone, he's reminding them of the HN guidelines and very gently and patiently explaining that they're violating said guidelines. The implication I tried to make was that I had violated the guidelines at least once, dang had replied to me and I had agreed with him that I was in the wrong. I don't disagree with your observation though. I have developed this habit of explicitly saying "I agree" before elaborating to defend against such misinterpretations of intent.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
well, there's 2 forms of disagreement. I never felt like I was off put by any of dang's comments that I read. AKA a disagreement of tone (in the words of The Big Lebowski: "You're not wrong, Walter. You're an asshole!). He feels professional and won't devolve into flaming like other mods on other sites. He makes his points and lets his sourcing and historical knowledge talk instead of insults or appeals to authority. Of course there's plenty of times where I disagree philosophically, and that's fine. At the end of the day I'll never fully agree with any one person. I just simply don't want to be called any number of insults you'd hear elsewhere if you dare not tow the line perfectly.