zlacker

My post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769925) was not for or against monarchy, or about monarchy at all. It was about tedious, low-quality internet comments. I'm against them.

(Edit: that first sentence is really a template instantiation. When I post like this, it's never for or against <T>. It's always just about internet comments. People who are against <T> (or for it) often react like we're for <T> (or against it), but this is an illusion. It could quickly be cured by grokking the template, since at that level all these posts are entirely the same.)

It may not make so much sense now, but this thread was filling with the worst sort of dumb flamebait when it got started. That it isn't so now is because I've spent the last 3 hours refreshing the page and meticulously moderating it. If some of my comments are a little dyspeptic, that's because dealing with tedious comments is tedious, and I sort of pep myself up by letting loose a bit. Not the finest of practices but esprit de corps is also a need.

>>dang+(OP)
Your comments in this thread only seem dyspeptic because they’re antiseptic. Thank you for cleaning up the viral vitriol.

>>dang+(OP)
Thanks for clarifying!

>>dang+(OP)
Thank you.

>>dang+(OP)
As always, thanks for keeping HN interesting Dan

>>dang+(OP)
Your post begins "All: please don't post flamebait, including ranting against monarchy or railing against 'the nobility' like it's 1770." To then state that this post "was not about monarchy at all" feels like gaslighting. Perhaps you didn't intend to write about monarchy, but in fact you did.

>>istjoh+qM3
I see what you mean! But note the words flamebait, ranting, and railing. That is what I was asking people not to do, same as always. Thoughtful, non-flamebait comments were not excluded.

I should have said it differently because I gave the impression of being on one side when the truth is that I don't care; and qua moderator, I really don't care.