3 ms·

WTF is this comment? Chastising someone for satire? Get a grip.

tptacek 12y ago
As someone who deeply appreciates the work 'dang is doing trying to maintain civility on the site and thinks the site is drastically better now that moderation has a public face and improved transparency: maybe you can find a better way to discuss what he's doing than saying "get a grip". Reading horrible, mean-spirited comments day-in and day-out must be the shittiest part of that job. I can't fathom a reason why anyone would want to make the job shittier.
- thrill 12y ago
  Overreaction is still overreaction.
  - dang 12y ago
    I must protest, because there's a serious point here. Satire aside, it's not ok to say things like "You're lying" on Hacker News. There are civil ways to make any such point. If people break the HN guidelines egregiously, it's not overreacting for a moderator to say so. The satire thing is a separate issue. To anyone who reads as many toxic HN comments as I do, the satire in that comment was anything but obvious. It's not even close to the worst stuff HN users say to each other. The implication in your comment and the root comment is that moderators shouldn't make mistakes. That's too high a bar. We make mistakes all the time. That's why I picked this username!
    - thrill 12y ago
      The serious point that lately seems to be frequently missed is that people communicate in different ways. Some use satire, some use brevity, some use example, some use beat-them-into-submission verbosity, but some use counter example, some play at ludicity, some only elocute in jargon, some lay on the sesquipedalian, and some simply quip. The benefit of the doubt or the long pause goes a long way to healthy and interesting conversation.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dang 12y ago
I didn't (and wouldn't) chastise anyone for satire. I wonder if you perhaps read these comments in the wrong order, or didn't see them all before you posted this?

As someone who deeply appreciates the work 'dang is doing trying to maintain civility on the site and thinks the site is drastically better now that moderation has a public face and improved transparency: maybe you can find a better way to discuss what he's doing than saying "get a grip". Reading horrible, mean-spirited comments day-in and day-out must be the shittiest part of that job. I can't fathom a reason why anyone would want to make the job shittier.

thrill 12y ago
Overreaction is still overreaction.
- dang 12y ago
  I must protest, because there's a serious point here. Satire aside, it's not ok to say things like "You're lying" on Hacker News. There are civil ways to make any such point. If people break the HN guidelines egregiously, it's not overreacting for a moderator to say so. The satire thing is a separate issue. To anyone who reads as many toxic HN comments as I do, the satire in that comment was anything but obvious. It's not even close to the worst stuff HN users say to each other. The implication in your comment and the root comment is that moderators shouldn't make mistakes. That's too high a bar. We make mistakes all the time. That's why I picked this username!
  - thrill 12y ago
    The serious point that lately seems to be frequently missed is that people communicate in different ways. Some use satire, some use brevity, some use example, some use beat-them-into-submission verbosity, but some use counter example, some play at ludicity, some only elocute in jargon, some lay on the sesquipedalian, and some simply quip. The benefit of the doubt or the long pause goes a long way to healthy and interesting conversation.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

dang 12y ago

I didn't (and wouldn't) chastise anyone for satire. I wonder if you perhaps read these comments in the wrong order, or didn't see them all before you posted this?