zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. nomilk+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-01-13 14:27:59
The essay was posted about 60 minutes ago but must have been removed as that post is no longer discoverable through yc search. Weird.
replies(2): >>Animal+D >>dang+KJ
2. Animal+D[view] [source] 2025-01-13 14:32:21
>>nomilk+(OP)
It got flagged to death. 50+ upvotes, 6 comments, but flag killed.

I mean, I kind of understand: The discussion is going to turn into the kind of thing that HN tries to avoid. And yet, "moralities" driving things we can't talk about is the point of the essay, so it's really ironic to have it flag killed here.

Off topic: We used to be able to vouch for flagged posts, and we can't seem to do that any more. That means that flag killing is uncorrectable - if users decide that it's inappropriate, their only recourse is to email dang. That seems to me to be a step backward - let the user base correct the overreach of others in the user base.

replies(2): >>nomilk+m1 >>dang+1O
◧◩
3. nomilk+m1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-13 14:36:05
>>Animal+D
Your second paragraph is very well said. Made me chuckle but also lament.
4. dang+KJ[view] [source] 2025-01-13 18:17:02
>>nomilk+(OP)
(This comment was originally posted in >>42683660 but we've merged that thread hither)
◧◩
5. dang+1O[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-13 18:33:56
>>Animal+D
> We used to be able to vouch for flagged posts, and we can't seem to do that any more.

That hasn't changed. Neither has any of the other logic around voting, flagging, or vouching.

Vouching unkills [dead] posts. The current thread was dead, for example, and vouches rescued it. But a post can be [flagged] without being [dead]. See >>38918548 for a past explanation.

replies(1): >>archag+zF1
◧◩◪
6. archag+zF1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-13 22:12:01
>>dang+1O
It should be possible for vouch-capable users to un-vouch in order to demote obvious rage-bait like this article. I'm sorry, but no constructive or intellectually curious discussion is possible here.
replies(1): >>dang+PL1
◧◩◪◨
7. dang+PL1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-13 22:44:03
>>archag+zF1
Some is happening in this thread, so it's possible.
[go to top]