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
well, there's 2 forms of disagreement. I never felt like I was off put by any of dang's comments that I read. AKA a disagreement of tone (in the words of The Big Lebowski: "You're not wrong, Walter. You're an asshole!). He feels professional and won't devolve into flaming like other mods on other sites. He makes his points and lets his sourcing and historical knowledge talk instead of insults or appeals to authority.

Of course there's plenty of times where I disagree philosophically, and that's fine. At the end of the day I'll never fully agree with any one person. I just simply don't want to be called any number of insults you'd hear elsewhere if you dare not tow the line perfectly.