3 ms·

> Doesn't sound like a good idea? Then shut up. Your comment is needlessly mean-spirited. The top-voted comment on the recent Show HN thread would seem to appl

by pc 12y ago

> Doesn't sound like a good idea? Then shut up. Your comment is needlessly mean-spirited. The top-voted comment on the recent Show HN thread would seem to apply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7984826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7984826

Throwaway618 12y ago
It's a fair and honest criticism that has produced interesting conversation. You're being mean-spirited as well, but you think you're exempt. Shove off.
- Throwaway618 12y ago
  Heh, HN doesn't report individual comment scores accurately; my account is at -9 now but this comment stays at -4. It's funny to imagine anything like Reddit's (?|?) controversy here.
pessimizer 12y ago
>Instead of "you're doing it wrong", suggest alternatives.
cookiecaper 12y ago
I don't think it has to be read as especially malicious. He's trying to make a point with pointed language, but it doesn't necessarily imply ill-will.
- dang 12y ago
  Such nuances are lost in an anonymous internet forum. It doesn't have to be read that way (what does?) but that doesn't matter—look at the effect it has had.
  - throwaway7714 12y ago
    Moderation systems fail when they don't accept that toxicity is a human norm, pretending instead that human toxicity is an enemy to be defeated. Why is it so wrong to criticize a bad idea? To do so bluntly? The "effect that it had" was an honest conversation. Ultimately I find HN's policies an embarrassment and a symptom of dishonesty. Way I see it, you were brought on to make moderation more transparent, and you're doing well, but you weren't actually given powers to attack HN's main problem, which I'd define as a discomfort with disagreement. And maybe that's a human problem. But we live in a very negative time. Outright hatred is a part of life, and tools of hatred (downvoting, shadowbanning) are hypocritically applied to shut hatred down. But it doesn't shut it down, and it shouldn't. To say "You shouldn't feel this way" is fair game when applied as an argument between people. What you say when you banish shit is "You shouldn't exist," and that's an unsustainable mindset. You can see the logs. You can probably see that I'm a serial offender when it comes to pissing people off here. I've got yet another account on your bad list because you think you can control discomfort. But you don't have a modicum of transparency or honesty in your line of work, dang: there's nothing you can point to that explains why my downvoted comments are both at -4 as some minimum, but the css makes them different shades of grey. That's really trivial shit to care about, but that's my point: you're not taking care of trivial explanation of policy. You're an improvement, but that doesn't mean you're done.

by pc 12y ago

Throwaway618 12y ago

It's a fair and honest criticism that has produced interesting conversation. You're being mean-spirited as well, but you think you're exempt. Shove off.

Throwaway618 12y ago
Heh, HN doesn't report individual comment scores accurately; my account is at -9 now but this comment stays at -4. It's funny to imagine anything like Reddit's (?|?) controversy here.

pessimizer 12y ago

>Instead of "you're doing it wrong", suggest alternatives.

cookiecaper 12y ago

I don't think it has to be read as especially malicious. He's trying to make a point with pointed language, but it doesn't necessarily imply ill-will.

dang 12y ago
Such nuances are lost in an anonymous internet forum. It doesn't have to be read that way (what does?) but that doesn't matter—look at the effect it has had.
- throwaway7714 12y ago
  Moderation systems fail when they don't accept that toxicity is a human norm, pretending instead that human toxicity is an enemy to be defeated. Why is it so wrong to criticize a bad idea? To do so bluntly? The "effect that it had" was an honest conversation. Ultimately I find HN's policies an embarrassment and a symptom of dishonesty. Way I see it, you were brought on to make moderation more transparent, and you're doing well, but you weren't actually given powers to attack HN's main problem, which I'd define as a discomfort with disagreement. And maybe that's a human problem. But we live in a very negative time. Outright hatred is a part of life, and tools of hatred (downvoting, shadowbanning) are hypocritically applied to shut hatred down. But it doesn't shut it down, and it shouldn't. To say "You shouldn't feel this way" is fair game when applied as an argument between people. What you say when you banish shit is "You shouldn't exist," and that's an unsustainable mindset. You can see the logs. You can probably see that I'm a serial offender when it comes to pissing people off here. I've got yet another account on your bad list because you think you can control discomfort. But you don't have a modicum of transparency or honesty in your line of work, dang: there's nothing you can point to that explains why my downvoted comments are both at -4 as some minimum, but the css makes them different shades of grey. That's really trivial shit to care about, but that's my point: you're not taking care of trivial explanation of policy. You're an improvement, but that doesn't mean you're done.