zlacker

I'm not sure what you mean, the link you posted showed itself to be 100% accurate with the claim.

>>celtic+(OP)
The issue in that case was more the added bit about downvotes, which broke the site guidelines.

>>dang+5J
The claim of the other poster was accurate. The question of whether you were being fair or not doesn't change that.

>>celtic+wU
It wasn't accurate. They mentioned the lesser part of why I moderated the comment and omitted the greater part, which is what most people do when telling a story about how we suppressed them unfairly. That's presumably why such stories never come with links, which would allow readers to make up their own minds about what happened.

>>celtic+(OP)
The claim is lopsided. @dang implies how the original comment wasn't all that great... but wasn't a real problem, & it wasn't until the comment was edited to include the downvotes that @dang intervened. That the commenter re-raised the issue again here as the reason for @dang intervening in the first place seems to be incorrect, as I read it.

>>dang+ti1
> That's presumably why such stories never come with links

No, I didn't include a link because I was posting from my phone, and "hacker" "news" doesn't include a sane way to search through thread history for specific comments. I'm glad someone else went through the trouble.

But hey, you're free to continue to not assume good faith, right?

>>crafty+5j2
I said most people and presumably as a way of not jumping to that conclusion about you. The pattern in general is very consistent. But I can see how it would be annoying to read that, if your preference really was to provide a link.