zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. dang+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-20 05:32:05
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

replies(1): >>0xDEAF+61
2. 0xDEAF+61[view] [source] 2023-11-20 05:38:07
>>dang+(OP)
dang can you tell me if this comment I wrote was downranked by a mod? >>38342452
replies(1): >>dang+C6
◧◩
3. dang+C6[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 06:10:02
>>0xDEAF+61
No. What made you think it was?
replies(1): >>0xDEAF+C7
◧◩◪
4. 0xDEAF+C7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 06:15:10
>>dang+C6
It got a number of upvotes, but somehow ended up at the bottom of the comment thread.
replies(1): >>dang+kI3
◧◩◪◨
5. dang+kI3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-21 00:26:23
>>0xDEAF+C7
I'm sorry! It was indeed downweighted, though not by a mod - there are other ways that that can happen.

I'm not sure why I thought otherwise—it's possible that I didn't look at the correct comment, or possibly I looked at it before it got downweighted, though neither of those seem likely. In any case, I definitely don't want to give you, or any user, inaccurate information and I'm sorry about that.

As for the comment itself, I don't think it was terribly good for HN—it was more on the snark/fulmination/flamewar side of the ledger, rather than the curious conversation we're looking for, as described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If I had seen it I might have downweighted it too, though probably not as much.

[go to top]