41 ms·
No names were called.
by bdcravens 2y ago
No names were called.
- dredmorbius 2y agoThey were by implication.
- bdcravens 2y agoWell, that's stretching the HN guidelines even if that were the case. Drawing a conclusion that an author may be biased based on their employment is far from an ad hominem.
- dredmorbius 2y agoIf you follow dang's moderation comments closely (and I do, both to understand, and occasionally criticise, his actions), you'll note that implication and nuance actually play critical roles.
- jrflowers 2y agoIt would require the reader to actively insert additional meaning into a mundane summary that isn’t disputed in order to arrive at name-calling here. I an not familiar with all of the minutiae of dang’s moderation philosophy, but taking a comment, attributing the least charitable possible interpretation to it, and then accusing someone of name-calling based off nothing but your claim to a deeper knowledge about how he thinks seems like unproductive conversation.
- dredmorbius 2y agoA key distinction is that one doesn't accuse of name-calling, one moderates based on it. Accusations are also personal attacks, and are similarly against guidelines. Note too that it's member votes and flags which achieve the overwhelming majority of moderation results on HN, so going up against a significant, and reasonably plausible, objection, probably isn't a winning move. That said, I've overspent myself in this thread.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]