4 ms·

> The admins' job is to facilitate that process. This does not involve declaring what the truth is and imposing it on those who disagree I mean, you’ve detache

by jorvi 3y ago

> The admins' job is to facilitate that process. This does not involve declaring what the truth is and imposing it on those who disagree I mean, you’ve detached comments from threads for “creating a risk for an inflammatory discussion” (paraphrase), without detaching the opposing view’s comments. This might come from the good intention of keeping HNs spirit (“protecting the vessel”), but the net effect is still that you are picking sides / who’s voice gets to be heard. Either everyone gets detached or no one does, otherwise you do not get to lay a claim to neutrality. The same happens with the rate limit crap. I’m pretty certain most people who get hit by it aren’t actually spamming or causing problems, they’re just telling facts or viewpoints that (a subsect of) HN is uneasy with. I am very aware modding is mostly a thankless job with no reward, so I guess like in open source I don’t really get to complain unless I put up effort or money. So if you feel like ignoring me that would be completely fair.

pvg 3y ago
you’ve detached comments from threads for “creating a risk for an inflammatory discussion” (paraphrase), without detaching the opposing view’s comments. You should find some examples where the detaching went wrong, in your estimate. Usually things get detached not for creating a risk but actually starting an unrelated flamewar or innocent swerve to a topic not strongly related to the original comment which then consumes the subthread.
dang 3y ago
Those examples don't have to do with picking sides in an argument or making calls about that's true vs. false. If users break the site guidelines, we moderate them regardless of which side they're on, whether the comment is true or false or we agree with it or not.
- jorvi 3y ago
  I remember the person I was responding to making a case that a continuous push for women in education was good, and me stating that for a long while now, men have actually been behind in education in both high school and university. You decided to cleave my comment from visibility but not theirs, for the reason I stated earlier. Likewise as said earlier, I understand you have limited time and will. I understand having only X amount of those to spend on each decision. And with your experience, you probably have developed a good intuition for which comments need to be sussed out to preserve the peace. That’s honestly fine with me, just don’t make claims that a decision like that preserves a balanced view of a discussion. That’s where the rub lies for me. > If users break the site guidelines They’re written in such a way that any comment that does not sit well with the larger part of the community (or even just a thread) can be explained to violate the guidelines.
  - dang 3y ago
    > I remember the person I was responding to making a case that a continuous push for women in education was good, and me stating that for a long while now, men have actually been behind in education in both high school and university. You decided to cleave my comment from visibility but not theirs, for the reason I stated earlier. I believe you! but what I'm saying is that this had nothing to do with your particular view or with somehow endorsing the other comment as "true" and yours as "false". It would be interesting to take a look at the specific case if you can dig up the link. > They’re written in such a way that any comment that does not sit well with the larger part of the community (or even just a thread) can be explained to violate the guidelines. I'd say that's true up to about 30%. There's still a lot of bedrock there. That's on purpose—we want them to be general enough to apply to lots of situations, but not so vague as to apply arbitrarily to anything.
    - jorvi 3y ago
      I think we’ll end up talking in circles, if we aren’t already. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to respond repeatedly and clarifying your perspective!

by jorvi 3y ago

pvg 3y ago

you’ve detached comments from threads for “creating a risk for an inflammatory discussion” (paraphrase), without detaching the opposing view’s comments. You should find some examples where the detaching went wrong, in your estimate. Usually things get detached not for creating a risk but actually starting an unrelated flamewar or innocent swerve to a topic not strongly related to the original comment which then consumes the subthread.

dang 3y ago

Those examples don't have to do with picking sides in an argument or making calls about that's true vs. false. If users break the site guidelines, we moderate them regardless of which side they're on, whether the comment is true or false or we agree with it or not.

jorvi 3y ago
I remember the person I was responding to making a case that a continuous push for women in education was good, and me stating that for a long while now, men have actually been behind in education in both high school and university. You decided to cleave my comment from visibility but not theirs, for the reason I stated earlier. Likewise as said earlier, I understand you have limited time and will. I understand having only X amount of those to spend on each decision. And with your experience, you probably have developed a good intuition for which comments need to be sussed out to preserve the peace. That’s honestly fine with me, just don’t make claims that a decision like that preserves a balanced view of a discussion. That’s where the rub lies for me. > If users break the site guidelines They’re written in such a way that any comment that does not sit well with the larger part of the community (or even just a thread) can be explained to violate the guidelines.
- dang 3y ago
  > I remember the person I was responding to making a case that a continuous push for women in education was good, and me stating that for a long while now, men have actually been behind in education in both high school and university. You decided to cleave my comment from visibility but not theirs, for the reason I stated earlier. I believe you! but what I'm saying is that this had nothing to do with your particular view or with somehow endorsing the other comment as "true" and yours as "false". It would be interesting to take a look at the specific case if you can dig up the link. > They’re written in such a way that any comment that does not sit well with the larger part of the community (or even just a thread) can be explained to violate the guidelines. I'd say that's true up to about 30%. There's still a lot of bedrock there. That's on purpose—we want them to be general enough to apply to lots of situations, but not so vague as to apply arbitrarily to anything.
  - jorvi 3y ago
    I think we’ll end up talking in circles, if we aren’t already. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to respond repeatedly and clarifying your perspective!