2 ms·

Dang, I really respect your work here and in general you do a great job, but I think you overstepped here in auto-collapsing this comment thread and replying (e

Dang, I really respect your work here and in general you do a great job, but I think you overstepped here in auto-collapsing this comment thread and replying (edit: To clarify for anyone coming to this later, the GP comment was collapsed by moderator action at the time of writing. It is now flagged by user flags, which I think is entirely appropriate.) PG gets a lot of flack on HN, some comments better-considered than others. Most of us are able to tell the difference and file the mindless attacks appropriately. We don't need you to rush to his defense, and in fact you doing so is likely counterproductive. You've often said that you take a policy of moderating less, not more, when YC is involved. This interaction and moderation action breaks that pattern, which is harmful.

dang 2y ago
It seems plainly offtopic (and flamebaity and name-calling) to me, but ok, I've uncollapsed the subthread. As for replying: sorry, but as I said at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42763996 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42763996, when people I'm fond of are maligned, I'm going to respond. That has nothing to do with YC, that has to do with being human. (Another recent example was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42685972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42685972.)
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  The problem here is the mixing of administrative powers (collapsing of subthread) and expression of private opinions. One is ideally an unbiased, mechanical action subject to a rigid set of publicized conditions to which the comment(s) concerned are applied. So-and-so comment(s) are moderated so-and-so because they violate so-and-so in the guidelines, for example. The other is (by your own admission) a biased, emotional, personal action subject and liable only to yourself. The two are mutually incompatible when performed together.
  - dang 2y ago
    I can't (and don't want to) do this job purely mechanically, and never have. I doubt it's possible, and if it is, I doubt it would make for good moderation. Actually, though, collapsing the GP subthread was just that sort of application of the site guidelines. It's obvious (IMO) that the subthread is flamebaity and well offtopic. I reversed that decision as a courtesy to lolinder and a nod to the "moderate less when YC is involved" principle—even though it was the correct call from the unbiased/mechanical/rigid side of the ledger.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Let me put it this way then: You're mixing the professional with the personal. Administering and moderating Hacker News is your job, that is correct. You also admitted that the rebuttal and moderation action this all stems from was driven by personal emotions (your liking Paul Graham). Your personal emotions have nothing to do with your professional job, the two are irrelevant to each other. It's this mixing of professional and personal that is the problem. Not performing your job consistently will draw criticism, but mixing the two will cause even more fundamental criticism as was the case here. Personally, I think the correct way of handling this would have been one of two ways: A) Engage in moderating the thread and refrain from acting personally. Or B) Engage in the thread personally and recuse yourself from the thread professionally, asking another moderator to do the work.
      - dang 2y ago
        I don't believe the professional and the personal can be completely separated. People can't stop being human and what does "personal" mean, at bottom, but that? It's true that we shouldn't act on each other purely out of our own emotion but that's true personally too, not just professionally. If you try to exclude emotion from human activity, including internet moderation, it ends up running the show anyways, just more crudely and unconsciously. Better to consciously give it a place—hopefully an appropriate place. Questions like this have come up over the years and my sense (you may disagree of course) is that the community is happier with moderators who show feeling sometimes and can be related to personally. I could be wrong about that, but if so, it should have caused large problems long before now.

dang 2y ago

It seems plainly offtopic (and flamebaity and name-calling) to me, but ok, I've uncollapsed the subthread. As for replying: sorry, but as I said at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42763996 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42763996, when people I'm fond of are maligned, I'm going to respond. That has nothing to do with YC, that has to do with being human. (Another recent example was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42685972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42685972.)

Dalewyn 2y ago
The problem here is the mixing of administrative powers (collapsing of subthread) and expression of private opinions. One is ideally an unbiased, mechanical action subject to a rigid set of publicized conditions to which the comment(s) concerned are applied. So-and-so comment(s) are moderated so-and-so because they violate so-and-so in the guidelines, for example. The other is (by your own admission) a biased, emotional, personal action subject and liable only to yourself. The two are mutually incompatible when performed together.
- dang 2y ago
  I can't (and don't want to) do this job purely mechanically, and never have. I doubt it's possible, and if it is, I doubt it would make for good moderation. Actually, though, collapsing the GP subthread was just that sort of application of the site guidelines. It's obvious (IMO) that the subthread is flamebaity and well offtopic. I reversed that decision as a courtesy to lolinder and a nod to the "moderate less when YC is involved" principle—even though it was the correct call from the unbiased/mechanical/rigid side of the ledger.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Let me put it this way then: You're mixing the professional with the personal. Administering and moderating Hacker News is your job, that is correct. You also admitted that the rebuttal and moderation action this all stems from was driven by personal emotions (your liking Paul Graham). Your personal emotions have nothing to do with your professional job, the two are irrelevant to each other. It's this mixing of professional and personal that is the problem. Not performing your job consistently will draw criticism, but mixing the two will cause even more fundamental criticism as was the case here. Personally, I think the correct way of handling this would have been one of two ways: A) Engage in moderating the thread and refrain from acting personally. Or B) Engage in the thread personally and recuse yourself from the thread professionally, asking another moderator to do the work.
    - dang 2y ago
      I don't believe the professional and the personal can be completely separated. People can't stop being human and what does "personal" mean, at bottom, but that? It's true that we shouldn't act on each other purely out of our own emotion but that's true personally too, not just professionally. If you try to exclude emotion from human activity, including internet moderation, it ends up running the show anyways, just more crudely and unconsciously. Better to consciously give it a place—hopefully an appropriate place. Questions like this have come up over the years and my sense (you may disagree of course) is that the community is happier with moderators who show feeling sometimes and can be related to personally. I could be wrong about that, but if so, it should have caused large problems long before now.