zlacker

>>capabl+(OP)
HN is one of the few communities where I've had scenarios where I've gotten into a spirited discussion, been gently told to cool off (or gotten a temporary rate limit), taken a step back and realized, you know what? I was not interacting in the spirit of the community.

Of course, the community is no more immune than any other regarding group think or rough edges. But on the whole, I've found the level of discourse to impressively high quality over time, and I've been posting and reading here on one account or another for over a decade. It's not just the level of discourse that is impressive, but its prolonged longevity. I think it can only have occurred from a very thoughtful approach to moderation; something I immediately miss when I step into other less curated forums such as Reddit and Twitter, where I can find the interesting content in the discourse, but laden with significantly more noise and significantly less thoughtfulness.

Thanks dang!

>>yowlin+pv
> I think it can only have occurred from a very thoughtful approach to moderation

I agree. I don't think I've ever seen a reply from dang that I didn't agree with. I agreed with him even in the times he replied to me. I'm not sure if I succeeded in taking the advice to heart but I did listen and try.

Thanks dang.

>>matheu+at1
> I agreed with him even in the times he replied to me.

I am just reacting to that bit because I think it is important (though I agree about the rest). This is a place where a reply is not a counterpoint by default, and where people can have a discussion even if they partially agree, stupid as it sounds. I realised this a while ago, reading someone who was confused that a reply they got was not an argument against them or what they were saying, but instead just someone chipping in their perspective, which was neither contradiction nor approval. Most of online discussions are very adversarial or mindless piling on.

>>kergon+lw1
Usually, when you see dang replying to someone, he's reminding them of the HN guidelines and very gently and patiently explaining that they're violating said guidelines. The implication I tried to make was that I had violated the guidelines at least once, dang had replied to me and I had agreed with him that I was in the wrong.

I don't disagree with your observation though. I have developed this habit of explicitly saying "I agree" before elaborating to defend against such misinterpretations of intent.