Never Forgive Them

First, moderation should be clear enough that I do not have to ask "why?". Second, I have to trust the person I am emailing to give me a true, unbiased, answer. I will assume dang cannot spend time to thoroughly think through every question and complaint.

I know why I get rate limited, it is because "We rate limit accounts when they post too many low-quality comments and/or get involved in flamewars." I am always accused of this but it is never explained. In trying to defend my idea I get labeled as getting into a flamewar even when I am doing things like citing evidence to prove my point.

But dang is the only mediator of this subjective label.

Dang has said "Flamewar comments routinely get the largest number of responses." What? So post post a controversial hypothesis (note that something controversial does not mean it is not true) which creates a lot of responses, and then the comment gets flagged?

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Also, for me to communicate with dang, it means I have to give him my email, which is not required to make an account on this site.

Also, the HN Guidelines say "Please don't post shallow dismissals".

What is a downvote but the perfection of a shallow dismissal? Requiring people to comment when voting would end the gang dismissal of new/different ideas and foster creative thinking instead of crushing them into oblivion.

If HN is a conduit for YC, why would HN not want mindshare that reflects what YC wants? For instance, is this post not getting upvotes because it reflects negativly on these internet companies?

> That's not a reasonable standard, the target for such things has to be something like 'most users, most of the time' rather than you personally.

When you code, you have to comment so any idiot can understand your logic, correct? I do not see why this is not true here. The standards are set by an algorithm that we cannot see.

> It sounds like you want to use a messageboard exclusively on your terms.

No, dang wants it on his terms. I do not want it on my terms or dangs terms. I want it on the community's terms. But there is not voting here on the topic. It is authoritarian and I want to get rid of authoritarianism because that serves the most people the best. I know it is messy and ugly, but that is humanity.

While what I brought up here is tangential to the article, it is of the same expression. Authoritarian control for a purpose that benefits the authoritarian.

It was not a comment about "growth". It was a comment about function. Besides, Facebook has been around since 2005.

> You do not have to do this when you code

You do not have to, you are right. But people who are bad a coding do not do it.

https://dev.to/philip-ainberger/the-art-of-code-commenting-3...

> Social spaces, whether online or off don't work like code.

This very site uses code to control the conversation between two people. Where does this happen in the real world? Where is the algorithm that can make what comes out of my mouth not reach your ears? Where is the upvote floating over my head in real life? CAn someone new I meet look back at everything I said in my life?

Below is the third party on HN, like a policeman looking over our shoulder 24/7.

http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking-really...

> If you want to design a messageboard by voting, you should try that.

Why? So we become more splintered and alienated? This is what destroyed Linux.

> supported by concrete facts or experiences

If someone else can control you with a rule or law, without giving you a way to change that rule or law, what would you call that?

Defiend as Authoritarian : favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority (dang/algorithm) at the expense of personal freedom (the HN user)"

While a "flamewar" might be distracting, banning someone for it is precisely authoritarian as well as subjective.