zlacker

[return to "The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News"]
1. Mizza+B1[view] [source] 2019-08-08 10:11:54
>>lordna+(OP)
Shout out to dang! You're doing a great job! Thank you!

Strict moderation is the reason HN is the only reasonable discussion forum remaining on the internet. I wish good moderation was a skill that more people learned - would you ever be interested in writing a guide or teaching a class on moderation?

◧◩
2. dmix+q3[view] [source] 2019-08-08 10:34:53
>>Mizza+B1
I wouldn’t call it strict at all. He’s actually way more liberal about stuff than most over-bearing Reddit mods who think it’s their job to be editors of their own private newspaper rather than helping only when there’s no other option.

This is why dang is so good at what he does as it draws a difficult balance.

◧◩◪
3. celtic+v03[view] [source] 2019-08-09 14:25:54
>>dmix+q3
no, you just don't fall into the cracks that dang dislikes. I've seen him go after people who aren't causing problems because he doesn't like what they're saying. I've seen it multiple times actually.

His go to is to call it conspiracy regardless of what's actually being said.

◧◩◪◨
4. dang+zQ3[view] [source] 2019-08-09 20:07:11
>>celtic+v03
Where did I do this?

When I get something wrong, I'm happy to admit it and correct it. At the same time, people make all sorts of claims about horrid things we supposedly did, and most of those leave out important information.

Either way, if you're going to make claims like this, you should supply links so readers can make up their own minds.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. celtic+iY3[view] [source] 2019-08-09 21:18:50
>>dang+zQ3
In the other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19984428

you state that asking for sources is, and I quote: "a rather unsubstantive contribution".

You are now telling me I should be citing a source.

If I were being snarky I would ask if you would mind raising your signal/noise ratio as you did with the other poster.

I mean, which is it? Is asking to source the claim unsubstantive or not? Is it only unsubstantive if there's a claim against you personally?

As for allowing others to make up their mind, that would be what the poster in the other thread was presumably trying to do, and you shut him down. And that's really the point.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. dang+7k4[view] [source] 2019-08-10 01:56:32
>>celtic+iY3
A comment consisting of nothing but "got any sources for that?" is certainly "rather unsubstantive". But that is not why I replied to it. Had that been the only thing wrong with the comment, I wouldn't have. It was the following:

> Edit: lol, downvotes for asking for sources? "Hacker" "news" is just full of gems!

... that caused me to reply as a moderator, because that breaks more than one of the site guidelines, as well as being lame. This is routine moderation.

Both the original commenter and now you have given a distorted version of what happened there, as anyone who looks at the original thread can easily see. If that's what you have to resort to in order to come up with examples of moderator abuse on HN, we must be doing pretty well. Better than I'd have expected, in fact, given that we've posted 38,000 of these and no one bats a hundred.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. celtic+P65[view] [source] 2019-08-10 15:48:39
>>dang+7k4
also, since I forgot to address it in my other response.

asking for sources is not unsubstantive, not in the least. It's one of the most substantive things you can do, both as someone providing information, and as someone trying to evaluate the information being provided.

The fact that you've come to feel that asking for sources is less important than not making others feel uncomfortable goes a long way towards why I don't view HN as a place for decent discourse.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. dang+zd5[view] [source] 2019-08-10 16:50:57
>>celtic+P65
I didn't say any of those things. I'm afraid we're going in circles now.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. celtic+rO5[view] [source] 2019-08-11 00:22:39
>>dang+zd5
That doesn't pass the reasonable person test.
[go to top]