Maryam Mirzakhani, first woman and Iranian to win Fields Medal, has died

Can you remove my comment altogether? It's getting downvotes because in light of you cleaning up the rest of this thread my comment here is no longer relevant.

Her work was in (the more visualizable parts of?) geometry/topology.

I have no idea what math and physics visualization sculptures refers to, but would love to see if you can show us.

I've now had time to read this. I appreciate your dedication to HN, to having a good community, and your wanting to see a fellow user treated fairly. In this we agree. But I'm not seeing a lot to agree with in your analysis.

When you say that I "could've/should've probably realized" that a commenter meant the opposite of what he posted, consider what you're asking for at scale: that we understand what commenters mean regardless of what they say. It may have been obvious to you what that particular comment meant (but did you read it before he edited it to say the opposite, and understand it the correct way? If not, then the luxury of hindsight is at work here.) Different things are obvious to each of us. The things that are obvious to me are easy, so the question is, what about the things that aren't obvious? Translate what you're saying into a general moderation strategy and apply it to those cases and it turns into a requirement to be a mind reader. That I can't do.

In your analysis of the original comment you skipped over "Iran is not Saudi Arabia or anything like that". To me that means you're not reading the comment nearly closely enough to assess how provocative these things are. Perhaps this national swipe happened to align with your own politics and so was less visible to you qua national swipe (I'm sure that's true for most readers here). Nevertheless a national swipe is clearly what it was, however unintentional, and the point we're trying to make over and over to HN users—including our esteemed users from Iran, who are as welcome here as all others—is that it doesn't matter how unintentional that is or even how accurate it is. When you post like this, the flames that result burn the same way as any others. If we don't want HN to be a war zone, we all need to take care of it.

It seems like part of what surprised you is that I told the commenter directly that if we would ban him if he continued to ignore the moderation request. HN has a lot of comments coming through the firehose. I post a lot, but the total of what I post is negligible (a good thing!), so it's unsurprising that you hadn't seen a comment like that before. It's actually pretty standard:

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...

It is intended to provide clear information about what happens when we've let someone know that they're breaking the rules and ask them to stop, but instead of receiving the feedback they argue and make protests. Why do we do this? Because for some users, it's better this way. For whatever reason, some people don't respond well to polite coaxing but the clear line, "if you do this again, we will ban you", actually works for them in the sense that they then proceed to use the site as intended. When dealing with thousands of users one soon learns that different 'channels' work for different people and one tries to select the channel that's indicated in a situation. Probably this was the wrong selection here, but (short of being a mind reader) it's impossible to make correct selections at scale when a comment says the opposite of what it means. Had I encountered a comment that read, "I didn't want to start a flamewar", I would not have switched to channel B; I would have stuck with channel A (polite coaxing), given a fuller explanation, and said something like "Please stop".

As for my having been in haste, to me that's the root cause of the misunderstanding because with more time to reflect I could have adjusted my reaction to be subtly different. Yet this too has a systemic aspect. HN has a small number of moderators and we all work weekends. HN never stops, but we have to. (We don't stop as much as we should, but that's an occupational hazard and a different story.) Sometimes moderating in haste is unavoidable because the alternative would be never being available to do anything else in life—and I assure you that would not lead to HN being better. So while it's bad to moderate in haste and we don't like to do it and we generally avoid it, trying to avoid it completely would be a mistake.

I'm sorry I neglected to reply to that bit. I guess I just don't share your perception at all? I didn't call him a nationalist and didn't flame him. I wrote, "The only place to keep Hacker News as a place for things that gratify intellectual curiosity is to keep it free of nationalistic indignation, however justified." This phrasing is deliberately general (i.e. about HN as a whole) and impersonal (e.g. "nationalistic indignation" as a genre). Not only did it not target a person, it was specifically worded not to target a person. I also recognized that the feelings behind these comments are justified, as way of making clear that (a) anyone in the commenter's place would feel the same way, but (b) HN's rules nevertheless require not posting those feelings in a way that constitutes flamebait. People on the other sides of these conflicts also have justified feelings. It's hard to remember this, but civil discourse requires that we remember it.

It's not the case that I singled 0xFFC out for harsh treatment. I was much harsher with the commenter who went on tilt in response, and I posted those replies at the same time (possibly sooner in fact, since I vaguely remember going through the thread bottom-up). Moreover, when he didn't stop, I didn't merely say "if you do this again we will ban you"; I went ahead and did ban him—a far harsher response. So I'm not sure why you feel so strongly that my reaction was unbalanced and inequitable. I certainly make mistakes and am happy to learn when people point them out, but I'm not seeing it here.

I agree with you in one way, though, and it's actually the most important thing. The way I reacted provoked a huge discussion about moderation. Any time that happens, the moderation was just wrong. (That's also why I've erred on the side of posting lots of explanation, despite its verbosity and complete offtopicness.) Therefore I need not to react that way in the future, and I will make adjustments in the hope of not provoking those sorts of objections again.

It's not always easy, though. I took heat from other side in this case too, not so visibly, but actually stronger. However much we don't want to—and we really don't want to—we end up standing in the middle of the firefight when people flame each other about things like this, and people on both sides of the conflict go away thinking we're against them, secretly hate their countries, and are in favor of their enemies. That sucks.