Dang, is your response directed at me or the original poster, because it looks like you are singling just me out and not the poster about this selectively;
If that is the case, you need to take a hard look and rewrite your guidelines so they don't conflict and are consistent, as well as stop providing the advice you yourself have personally given as that too conflicts, and rules must be consistent for them to be fair and followed.
These are excerpts directly from an email you sent me many months ago when I had seen enough of false propaganda just oozing onto your platform that I finally complained about those propaganda statements being made and other issues to you directly. Here is your response.
"We don't moderate accounts for being wrong. The community has to sort this out, for a bunch of reasons."
...
"We've always operated HN on the assumption that readers are smart enough to make up their own minds; "
...
end excerpt>
So, if you are warning me for this, and only allow one side as it seems you are doing now, what you told me previously in writing, is just flat out false, and most importantly here we aren't talking about ideology or even politics in a normative fashion, we are talking about economics and systems of government that have real impact on survival over longer periods of time and the elements of such. Its definite, not opinion, and most importantly I'm addressing false statements made, and resources where one could learn more of the truth to critically think about these problems.
To me, it looks like you are doing the exact opposite of what you said you would do and how you said the site is run. I'd appreciate further clarification.
In either case, if your platform is going to be a one-way propaganda platform where you and other moderators do actually moderate arbitrarily for only one side of a conversation despite saying the opposite.
I'd want no part in it, that's not why I came here, and I certainly don't need to stay. I don't visit for the purpose of being bombarded by false statements and being prevented from setting those false statements straight while at the same time have systems that have actually worked be disparaged without any ability to combat falseness. This is intolerable to any rational thinking person as intelligent thought is the main difference between us and animals.
Credibility is important to me, and if you are applying rules to me arbitrarily for this, you have inconsistent rules, and no one can follow inconsistent rules because its arbitrary, it changes at every conflict.
Technically, they aren't even rules at that point they are heuristics matched to the people who moderate and based on their hidden state of natural biases and however they feel that day. Any person would need to be a mindreader with future sight to have any action not be non-sequitur. This obviously isn't possible, and the outcome of any action becomes indeterminate with regards to the compliance of said 'rules'.
If you need further time to respond, please feel free to instead send the response by email. I'll be looking for a platform that values free and open discussion and allows people the ability to fairly combat falseness.
I have no intention of being a victim of the principle outlined by Sapir-Whorf with regards to thought reform, and the appearance or outcome of ignoring false statements is universally recognized as consent that you agree with them (John Locke and beyond).
Edit: you've been posting so many unsubstantive and flamebait comments that I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
dang|2 years ago
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
than3|2 years ago
If that is the case, you need to take a hard look and rewrite your guidelines so they don't conflict and are consistent, as well as stop providing the advice you yourself have personally given as that too conflicts, and rules must be consistent for them to be fair and followed.
These are excerpts directly from an email you sent me many months ago when I had seen enough of false propaganda just oozing onto your platform that I finally complained about those propaganda statements being made and other issues to you directly. Here is your response.
"We don't moderate accounts for being wrong. The community has to sort this out, for a bunch of reasons."
...
"We've always operated HN on the assumption that readers are smart enough to make up their own minds; "
...
end excerpt>
So, if you are warning me for this, and only allow one side as it seems you are doing now, what you told me previously in writing, is just flat out false, and most importantly here we aren't talking about ideology or even politics in a normative fashion, we are talking about economics and systems of government that have real impact on survival over longer periods of time and the elements of such. Its definite, not opinion, and most importantly I'm addressing false statements made, and resources where one could learn more of the truth to critically think about these problems.
To me, it looks like you are doing the exact opposite of what you said you would do and how you said the site is run. I'd appreciate further clarification.
In either case, if your platform is going to be a one-way propaganda platform where you and other moderators do actually moderate arbitrarily for only one side of a conversation despite saying the opposite.
I'd want no part in it, that's not why I came here, and I certainly don't need to stay. I don't visit for the purpose of being bombarded by false statements and being prevented from setting those false statements straight while at the same time have systems that have actually worked be disparaged without any ability to combat falseness. This is intolerable to any rational thinking person as intelligent thought is the main difference between us and animals.
Credibility is important to me, and if you are applying rules to me arbitrarily for this, you have inconsistent rules, and no one can follow inconsistent rules because its arbitrary, it changes at every conflict.
Technically, they aren't even rules at that point they are heuristics matched to the people who moderate and based on their hidden state of natural biases and however they feel that day. Any person would need to be a mindreader with future sight to have any action not be non-sequitur. This obviously isn't possible, and the outcome of any action becomes indeterminate with regards to the compliance of said 'rules'.
If you need further time to respond, please feel free to instead send the response by email. I'll be looking for a platform that values free and open discussion and allows people the ability to fairly combat falseness.
I have no intention of being a victim of the principle outlined by Sapir-Whorf with regards to thought reform, and the appearance or outcome of ignoring false statements is universally recognized as consent that you agree with them (John Locke and beyond).
WhereIsTheTruth|2 years ago
[deleted]
imtringued|2 years ago
[deleted]
dang|2 years ago
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
_siis|2 years ago
[deleted]
DoctorNick|2 years ago
[deleted]
dang|2 years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: you've been posting so many unsubstantive and flamebait comments that I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.