Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thank you to dang and sctb

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 152 posts

Re: Thank you to dang and sctb

#141

Post by comesee »

DonHopkins wrote: post #140
comesee wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do you expect me to respond now that I've seen this cartoon? I genuinely have no ill will towards you or anyone, I'm simply trying to defend what I think is right in what I think is the most reasonable and civil way possible. Accusing someone of "sea lioning" is creating a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, if you're criticizing them for being reasonable and civil, how else should they defend t…

Stop.

Wow, no counter argument. Just shut down discussion. Okay

Re: Thank you to dang and sctb

#144

Post by mercer »

pvg wrote: post #100
dieterrams wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vouched for (undeaded) your comment, since I think the flagging/downvoting runs contrary to the principles of discourse we're (at least implicitly) celebrating here, smelling of tribalism/favoritism. Just because you view someone favorably, and someone else claims something negative about that person, doesn't mean you just get to flagbomb them into oblivion. The right response here is simply to ask for further subs…

smelling of tribalism/favoritism. Downvoting something for complaining about votes is fairly normal. Downvote baiting on top is flagworthy. I imagine lots of people quite sensibly apply these as a matter of course.

With some exceptions I downvote any comment that complains about downvotes. I'm not 100% comfortable about it, and I might change my approach, but so far rigorously applying the rules seems to be working. I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one to do so.

Re: Thank you to dang and sctb

#145

Post by DonHopkins »

comesee wrote: post #143
DonHopkins wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not okay. Just stop.

You stop. See how productive that is?

Now you've lost all pretense of being reasonable and civil, and you're proven beyond a doubt that you understand precisely what sea lioning is, and that you're doing it consciously and on purpose, and that you're not arguing in good faith, and that your intentions are bad.

Re: Thank you to dang and sctb

#146

Post by yesenadam »

tinkerteller wrote: post #102

While I know how hard these people work, I really cannot support your enthusiasm. The users are often banned at slightest opportunities and they are not even informed what they did wrong or the fact that they just got banned. They would just get dreaded “your are posting too fast” error and all their future posts and comments are automatically de-ranked forever with no recourse or appeal to these higher powers. I fel…

The users are often banned at slightest opportunities

Do you have any evidence whatever for that?

Re: Thank you to dang and sctb

#147

Post by comesee »

DonHopkins wrote: post #145
comesee wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You stop. See how productive that is?

Now you've lost all pretense of being reasonable and civil, and you're proven beyond a doubt that you understand precisely what sea lioning is, and that you're doing it consciously and on purpose, and that you're not arguing in good faith, and that your intentions are bad.

So mimicking you proves I am acting in bad faith? Well you got me (that's sarcasm). I mean this in the best and most compassionate way possible: seek help.

Re: Thank you to dang and sctb

#148

Post by DonHopkins »

cbkeller wrote: post #54
wild_preference wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at your screenshot you post elsewhere ( https://ibb.co/hoSMHK ), I have to agree with them insofar as you need to know when to quit. Running a forum is hard work and everyone wants to devolve every mod decision into rules lawyering, like "well, then why wasn't this specific thing in the rules?" No, there can't be a rule for literally everything, so you're just going to have to be an adult and take it on the c…

The "legalistic gambit" is definitely a real thing. I've just learned the other day that there's a neologism for this: "sealioning" [1], defined as > pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning

You nailed it. That's precisely what he's doing, and he knows it and is doing it on purpose (see below -- or better yet, don't bother). He doesn't really mean anything he says, and his civility is just a shallow pretense. The fact that he's shadow banned shows how well the moderation system works! Thank you again, moderators!

Re: Thank you to dang and sctb

#149

Post by dieterrams »

pvg wrote: post #113
dieterrams wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One imagines they do. I'm not sure that's what's going on here, though.

Why wouldn't exactly that be going on here? It's a grade-A downvotable, flaggable comment.

Jesus Christ.

Suppose he is being treated unfairly by the mods. Is that not worth complaining about?

I don't give a crap about some silly "downvote every comment complaining about downvotes" rule. Complaining about downvotes was frowned upon because people get inexplicably downvoted as a matter of course here, and the frequency of complaints was deemed sufficiently detracting to warrant being frowned upon. Being treated unfairly by the mods, however, is another matter entirely.

I haven't seen a preponderance of evidence suggesting the complaint was ill-founded, and the guy's tenure and comment history (what I looked through of it) do not suggest he's an ill-mannered troll, so I reserve judgement as to whether the complaint is in the wrong. Like any reasonable person would.

Re: Thank you to dang and sctb

#150

Post by hycaria »

nolok wrote: post #107
black-tea wrote: post #105

I do not post my thoughts on certain topics any more because I know I'll get banned for it. So you can thank them for your echo chamber.

I have plenty of contrarian opinion on things, such as thinking Tesla is massively overvalued and their autopilot a scam, or my views on apple, etc... And while I may be down voted when posting them never ever have I feared a ban. Maybe to find the issue you should pay less attention to your opinion and more to how you express it. Disagreeing with people is okay, even on the Internet there isn't always a side that's…

If you want an example, I have one at hand
Post reply on HN