zlacker

>>tonmoy+(OP)
The world of internet would be a _much_ better place if everyone at least have read this. I tried my best to adhere to these rules in any social network.

>>ateng+c9
It is unfortunate that the rules are so vague/up for interpretation, and when you break them, it isn't explained to you that you broke them. The rule just gets cited and there you go.

>>roflye+8B
That's in many ways deliberate, and I'd argue to positive effect.

<>>37256792 >

<>>34032058 >

<>>27307680 >

>>dredmo+yY1
Except, mods don't elaborate.

>>roflye+tP2
Except of course that they do, though given volume and repetitiveness of moderation issues, this isn't in all cases, and often points to earlier threads:

A general search showing links to rationale / reasons: <by:dang please don't https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=>

You can also typically search Algolia for "by:dang" + the text used to describe what guideline was transgressed.

As I've noted elsewhere, HN operates on frictions and nudges: <>>37137757 >

And you can always email mods for clarification, as has been noted several times already in this thread. Dang explicitly includes this option when banning established accounts in many cases.

In large part though, HN presumes adult behaviour, which includes the ability and inclination to research for yourself what you might have done wrong.

>>dredmo+mr3
We're not talking about immature behavior, I'm specifically talking about things like people who have some disability, or people who are culturally different than the majority of HN, being largely excluded.