311–320 of 371 posts
'News that hackers would be interested in reading' still applies, right? That's a bit clunky to put in a press release, I will admit, but I would be sad to see the range of HN reduced to merely startups and technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, here's what you do: 1) you ban people who are rude and who you disagree with philosophically, while you do NOT ban the equally rude people who you agree with. For evidence of the above, look at users like etherael (and his other names; not sure if he tors/vpns or if you can find them), who are raging assholes on a semi-routine basis, but who aren't banned because Libertarian BitCoin Lover matches your values. And…
Dan is a libertarian bitcoin lover? I've spent several hours in person talking to him. I'm a statist liberal Democrat who believes bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. He did not set off my spidey sense. I think you might be attributing generalized fears and frustrations onto specific people you don't know.
I think there's a lot of outspoken libertarian/anti-statist types around here, and that's fine, but I don't think it's even the plurality among political stances of HN readers. I suspect being invested in politics to the point that you'll regularly engage in political discussions online is very strongly correlated with holding atypical political views (I include myself in that set).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree! (with your pre-edit, reading "It's not that you expressed yourself poorly"). That's exactly what happened here. (And maybe Daniel can edit his comment.) Daniel does a really good job, and is extremely responsive by email and on here. It is obvious where he wrote "Ever notice how people who make claims about why they got banned never provide links to the posts in question?" is borne of deep frustration. He…
"It is one of the main reasons that I would never consciously leave a comment up if it reaches -3, even if I stand by it 100%, it's important, and the community happens to be wrong in its groupthink and I clearly have explained why. I would delete it instead." I am confused. Your preferred path is to avoid conflict such that you would rather delete than be disagreed with? If your opinion differs from groupthink, you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are your thoughts on this episode? https://jcs.org/notaweblog/2012/06/13/hellbanned_from_hacker...
That was before I started working on HN, so I don't have any inside details. But I'll give you my take on what I think happened, based on the time I did spend working with pg on the site. I need a few minutes though--there's another comment pending on my stack. Will come back and edit this. (Edit: I haven't forgotten, but have to run out to an appointment, so this will need to wait for another hour or two. Sorry abou…
For the record, I don't think he deserved a hellbanning, but then again, this was a while ago. And the wild west hadn't probably settled yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That only makes sense in case of "me too" comments. You have 4 options of response to somebodies comment: 1. Agreeing while providing some new information. So you write a comment (actually you'll probably upvote in this case as well, but whatever). 2. Agreeing without providing any new information. Like, "yeah it's completely right what this guy just wrote". That comment wouldn't be very useful indeed, so that's why…
Sometimes I disagree and someone else has already provided the new information I was planning to. Sometimes I have a problem more with tone than with content -- someone was right, but being a jerk. I'll both downvote them and upvote someone else who was right and more appropriately civil. Sometimes a comment is simply pointless. Someone posted a meme, a lame joke, or a comment that has nothing to do with the topic at…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It is one of the main reasons that I would never consciously leave a comment up if it reaches -3, even if I stand by it 100%, it's important, and the community happens to be wrong in its groupthink and I clearly have explained why. I would delete it instead." I am confused. Your preferred path is to avoid conflict such that you would rather delete than be disagreed with? If your opinion differs from groupthink, you…
His point, one that I strongly agree with, is that the threat of being hellbanned for comments that get downvoted is enough to stifle discussion on HN. Honestly, how often do you see passionate debate in HN comments?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His point, one that I strongly agree with, is that the threat of being hellbanned for comments that get downvoted is enough to stifle discussion on HN. Honestly, how often do you see passionate debate in HN comments?
[deleted]
edit: I guess the thread was getting cluttered and argumentative.
> To prevent abuse, moderators review flagged stories and comments and revoke flagging privileges from users who flag inappropriately. You need to tell us what "flag inappropriately" means immediately. How do I know if I've been flagging stories inappropriately this entire time?!
If you look at flagging links as (mostly) a chore, losing that ability isn't really severe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
My interpretation is at least a disagreement about whether the technique is effective. If your attempt at improving the discussion looks more or less the same as whining about downvotes, it's going to get interpreted as whining about downvotes. edit: I guess the thread was getting cluttered and argumentative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
My interpretation is at least a disagreement about whether the technique is effective. If your attempt at improving the discussion looks more or less the same as whining about downvotes, it's going to get interpreted as whining about downvotes. edit: I guess the thread was getting cluttered and argumentative.