HN's purpose is about gratifying intellectual curiosity (see Guidelines link in footer.) I don't see anything intellectually interesting here, and the comments in previous submissions suggest that nobody else has anything interesting to say about it either.
There are plenty of other online forums for complaining about the character of people in politics.
I've answered all these questions many times at great length over the last few days. In fact, it feels like I've done little else!
You shouldn't have any trouble finding those explanations, which link to other explanations going back many years, that fully explain how we approach moderating all of this. Here are a couple of fresh starting points:
If you read those and follow the links there, and still have a question I haven't answered, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
If you don't have a question, but disagree with how we do it, I respect that, and I respect that quite a few other users share that feeling. But that's not enough to change fundamental moderation principles—for that, I'd need to see a convincing argument proposing better principles. This is certainly possible and would be quite interesting. First, though, anyone who wants to make such a proposal needs to understand what the existing principles are, and what the mandate of the site is. Otherwise we're just talking past each other.
Could you please stop posting off-topic meta threads now?
Flagging votes and down votes should be displayed on a person's profile. Furthermore, topics shouldn't be flag-able (with some exceptions), only discussions should be. Yes, some are higher risk. But we're adults. Shutting down / cancelling a discussion before it starts is for children.
And yes perhaps, the more you flag and down vote, the less weight they carry.
Otherwise, as we all have noticed, the system is being gamed. The heavy handed HN Police aren't a benefit to the community.
I am generally very happy with the work dang does to keep this a community I enjoy.
It is more the lack of intervention on what is obviously a concerted effort to suppress discussion (specifically of involvement with the Com) that I find disturbing.
tlb|1 year ago
There are plenty of other online forums for complaining about the character of people in politics.
dang|1 year ago
You shouldn't have any trouble finding those explanations, which link to other explanations going back many years, that fully explain how we approach moderating all of this. Here are a couple of fresh starting points:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42978389
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42911011
If you read those and follow the links there, and still have a question I haven't answered, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
If you don't have a question, but disagree with how we do it, I respect that, and I respect that quite a few other users share that feeling. But that's not enough to change fundamental moderation principles—for that, I'd need to see a convincing argument proposing better principles. This is certainly possible and would be quite interesting. First, though, anyone who wants to make such a proposal needs to understand what the existing principles are, and what the mandate of the site is. Otherwise we're just talking past each other.
Could you please stop posting off-topic meta threads now?
palmfacehn|1 year ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42981600
chiefalchemist|1 year ago
And yes perhaps, the more you flag and down vote, the less weight they carry.
Otherwise, as we all have noticed, the system is being gamed. The heavy handed HN Police aren't a benefit to the community.
klunger|1 year ago
It is more the lack of intervention on what is obviously a concerted effort to suppress discussion (specifically of involvement with the Com) that I find disturbing.