7 ms·

dang, this is literally the first time I recall ever seeing a mod respond like this, and I've seen some pretty off-topic comments before. The comment was prett

dang, this is literally the first time I recall ever seeing a mod respond like this, and I've seen some pretty off-topic comments before. The comment was pretty darn civil, we've had political discussions all the time, and you know better than I do that not every well-received comment in HN sparks "intellectual curiosity". Furthermore, for the life of me I don't see the "flamewar" that was started here. It seems more like you started the flames by threatening an immediate ban. So I'm a little shocked to see you reply like this. You could've just said the comment is off-topic and deleted it quietly, but to suddenly call it a nationalistic flamewar... I don't see how you expect people to take that.

sixQuarks 9y ago
I agree
dang 9y ago
"Threatening an immediate ban" is not accurate. I led with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14776923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14776923. The commenter responded with "I wanted to started this flamewar", which they subsequently edited to say "didn't wanted" (presumably this was a language misfire). Moderation replies can indeed look pretty bad when the comments to which they're replying have been edited to say the opposite of what they originally said! When I showed up the thread was already full of angry arguments about Hezbollah and 9/11. Perhaps you haven't seen those comments? Some of them are probably flagged by now. I scolded all the users who were doing this and ended up banning the worst couple of offenders, so there shouldn't be any question of favoritism here. And yes, obviously the original comment wasn't nearly as toxic as the ones that followed. What you guys seem to be missing is that the comment that sparks a flamewar is responsible for what it sparked. It's not as if these dynamics aren't well understood and predictable. The provocation wasn't intentional (that's why I led with saying "I'm sure you meant well"), but it was negligent, and commenters here—all of us—need to learn not to do that. I've had to learn this myself, it took me a long time, and I haven't mastered it yet. You guys are right about one thing, though: I haven't done a good job of explaining how I intervened in the thread, to judge by how much pushback my comments received. When that happens, I take it as a sign of something wrong in my approach. In this case the reason is that I was running out the door on my way to a workshop, and moderation in haste is never a good idea. Now I'm running back to the same event (late!) so my last half-dozen comments may not be much better, but I hope I've at least given more background explanation.
- wfunction 9y ago
  (Sorry for the long reply -- if you're short of time, feel free to just skip to the arrow on the bottom since that's the most crucial part.) > "Threatening an immediate ban" is not accurate. I led with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14776923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14776923. The commenter responded with "I wanted to started this flamewar", which they subsequently edited to say "didn't wanted" (presumably this was a language misfire). Moderation replies can indeed look pretty bad when the comments to which they're replying have been edited to say the opposite of what they originally said! Okay, fair enough, but honestly I feel like as a mod, in the context of the grammar errors and the nature of the rest of the comment (as well as the fact that you wouldn't expect for someone to so quickly admit "I wanted to to start a flame war"), you could've/should've probably realized it was a language issue. Did it honestly not strike you as odd that you'd get a response like this, and did you honestly not expect this might be the case? (Not an actual question I'm expecting a reply to -- I just mentioned it since I think it's worth thinking about.) > When I ask someone not to start flamewars and they respond by not receiving the feedback and instead saying that they wanted to do it, this is usually a sign that an account doesn't mean to use the site as intended. How often does this even happen? Do you people ever immediately admit they want to start a flame war? Again, see above. (Again, not necessarily expecting a reply -- just letting you know this is what I'm thinking as I read this part of your comment.) > When I showed up the thread was already full of angry arguments about Hezbollah and 9/11. Perhaps you haven't read those comments? Some of them are probably flagged by now. Those comments deserved to be burned with fire. But that's not really an excuse for such a public e-slapping of a different user who put a pretty civil comment whose entire goal was to promote something a peaceful view. (Yes, I have read your rebuttal to this... addressed below.) > And yes, obviously the original comment wasn't nearly as toxic as the ones that followed. What you guys seem to be missing, though, is that the comment that sparks a flamewar is responsible for what it sparked. It's not as if these dynamics aren't well understood and entirely predictable. Responsible to some extent, yes, but (a) you can't generally expect users to understand and predict these dynamics as well as a moderator like you, and (b) one is not entirely responsible for everyone else's response to a situation. Moderating such a comment (editing/deleting/etc.) is completely fine. But to go out of your way to publicly shame him in such an unprecedented and strong fashion that so many of has had not even seen before is what struck me (and I suspect others) as utterly disproportional, especially when the topic is kind of sensitive. Not trying to suggest that you should make this a regular thing, but I think if at least if it had been a regular thing, it'd have been less problematic. However, one additional important (and non-meta) thing I want to note regarding "sparking a flamewar" itself is below. > If you read that original comment fairly you won't miss the obvious (if unintentional) provocations it contained. 2 things: First (less important), I only see one potential example of this, which is the use of the term "Right-wing media". <biased>I think it requires a bit of a thin skin to be insulted by someone saying that "$direction-wing media" is portraying my country and people inaccurately, especially given what we regularly see on HN, but whatever.</biased> I don't see anything more than that, so the pluralization of "provocations" and calling them "obvious" does bother me. ====> Second (VERY important), I do think your initial response was excellent. But in your second reply you suddenly went off the mod-rails and provoked a far more awful response when you started calling him "nationalist". Until this point, no particular person had been targeted, and the entire chain had been civil. (Again -- I very much admired how professional and otherwise excellent your initial reply was.) Yet you suddenly derailed and single-handedly flamed him like this. That was just awful and I really did not expect to see it from a mod who's trying to teach users how to avoid provoking others. It honestly made it that much harder to take the rest of what you said seriously and, IMO, completely sent across the wrong message. > You guys are right about one thing, though: I haven't done a good job of explaining how I intervened in the thread, to judge by how much pushback my comments received. When that happens, I take it as a sign of something wrong in my approach. In this case the reason is that I was running out the door on my way to a workshop, and moderation in haste is never a good idea. Now I'm running back to the same event (late!) so my last half-dozen comments may not be much better, but I hope I've at least given more background explanation. This is a great response here (and I agree that running out while typing a mod comment is not a great idea!) and yes it definitely helps. But my worry is less about the explanation for your response and more about the response itself -- see the last point above. Cheers~
danso 9y ago
From what I would guess, you didn't see a flamewar because off-topic comments have been heavily downvoted and downmodded, pre-empting that situation. I do agree dang's lengthy responses here are unusual -- maybe Saturdays allow for more time to deliberate. But the mod action here seems consistent to what's applied on a regular basis on HN. The difference is that we're getting an explanation for actions we likely take for granted on an average day.

sixQuarks 9y ago

I agree

dang 9y ago

"Threatening an immediate ban" is not accurate. I led with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14776923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14776923. The commenter responded with "I wanted to started this flamewar", which they subsequently edited to say "didn't wanted" (presumably this was a language misfire). Moderation replies can indeed look pretty bad when the comments to which they're replying have been edited to say the opposite of what they originally said! When I showed up the thread was already full of angry arguments about Hezbollah and 9/11. Perhaps you haven't seen those comments? Some of them are probably flagged by now. I scolded all the users who were doing this and ended up banning the worst couple of offenders, so there shouldn't be any question of favoritism here. And yes, obviously the original comment wasn't nearly as toxic as the ones that followed. What you guys seem to be missing is that the comment that sparks a flamewar is responsible for what it sparked. It's not as if these dynamics aren't well understood and predictable. The provocation wasn't intentional (that's why I led with saying "I'm sure you meant well"), but it was negligent, and commenters here—all of us—need to learn not to do that. I've had to learn this myself, it took me a long time, and I haven't mastered it yet. You guys are right about one thing, though: I haven't done a good job of explaining how I intervened in the thread, to judge by how much pushback my comments received. When that happens, I take it as a sign of something wrong in my approach. In this case the reason is that I was running out the door on my way to a workshop, and moderation in haste is never a good idea. Now I'm running back to the same event (late!) so my last half-dozen comments may not be much better, but I hope I've at least given more background explanation.

wfunction 9y ago
(Sorry for the long reply -- if you're short of time, feel free to just skip to the arrow on the bottom since that's the most crucial part.) > "Threatening an immediate ban" is not accurate. I led with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14776923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14776923. The commenter responded with "I wanted to started this flamewar", which they subsequently edited to say "didn't wanted" (presumably this was a language misfire). Moderation replies can indeed look pretty bad when the comments to which they're replying have been edited to say the opposite of what they originally said! Okay, fair enough, but honestly I feel like as a mod, in the context of the grammar errors and the nature of the rest of the comment (as well as the fact that you wouldn't expect for someone to so quickly admit "I wanted to to start a flame war"), you could've/should've probably realized it was a language issue. Did it honestly not strike you as odd that you'd get a response like this, and did you honestly not expect this might be the case? (Not an actual question I'm expecting a reply to -- I just mentioned it since I think it's worth thinking about.) > When I ask someone not to start flamewars and they respond by not receiving the feedback and instead saying that they wanted to do it, this is usually a sign that an account doesn't mean to use the site as intended. How often does this even happen? Do you people ever immediately admit they want to start a flame war? Again, see above. (Again, not necessarily expecting a reply -- just letting you know this is what I'm thinking as I read this part of your comment.) > When I showed up the thread was already full of angry arguments about Hezbollah and 9/11. Perhaps you haven't read those comments? Some of them are probably flagged by now. Those comments deserved to be burned with fire. But that's not really an excuse for such a public e-slapping of a different user who put a pretty civil comment whose entire goal was to promote something a peaceful view. (Yes, I have read your rebuttal to this... addressed below.) > And yes, obviously the original comment wasn't nearly as toxic as the ones that followed. What you guys seem to be missing, though, is that the comment that sparks a flamewar is responsible for what it sparked. It's not as if these dynamics aren't well understood and entirely predictable. Responsible to some extent, yes, but (a) you can't generally expect users to understand and predict these dynamics as well as a moderator like you, and (b) one is not entirely responsible for everyone else's response to a situation. Moderating such a comment (editing/deleting/etc.) is completely fine. But to go out of your way to publicly shame him in such an unprecedented and strong fashion that so many of has had not even seen before is what struck me (and I suspect others) as utterly disproportional, especially when the topic is kind of sensitive. Not trying to suggest that you should make this a regular thing, but I think if at least if it had been a regular thing, it'd have been less problematic. However, one additional important (and non-meta) thing I want to note regarding "sparking a flamewar" itself is below. > If you read that original comment fairly you won't miss the obvious (if unintentional) provocations it contained. 2 things: First (less important), I only see one potential example of this, which is the use of the term "Right-wing media". <biased>I think it requires a bit of a thin skin to be insulted by someone saying that "$direction-wing media" is portraying my country and people inaccurately, especially given what we regularly see on HN, but whatever.</biased> I don't see anything more than that, so the pluralization of "provocations" and calling them "obvious" does bother me. ====> Second (VERY important), I do think your initial response was excellent. But in your second reply you suddenly went off the mod-rails and provoked a far more awful response when you started calling him "nationalist". Until this point, no particular person had been targeted, and the entire chain had been civil. (Again -- I very much admired how professional and otherwise excellent your initial reply was.) Yet you suddenly derailed and single-handedly flamed him like this. That was just awful and I really did not expect to see it from a mod who's trying to teach users how to avoid provoking others. It honestly made it that much harder to take the rest of what you said seriously and, IMO, completely sent across the wrong message. > You guys are right about one thing, though: I haven't done a good job of explaining how I intervened in the thread, to judge by how much pushback my comments received. When that happens, I take it as a sign of something wrong in my approach. In this case the reason is that I was running out the door on my way to a workshop, and moderation in haste is never a good idea. Now I'm running back to the same event (late!) so my last half-dozen comments may not be much better, but I hope I've at least given more background explanation. This is a great response here (and I agree that running out while typing a mod comment is not a great idea!) and yes it definitely helps. But my worry is less about the explanation for your response and more about the response itself -- see the last point above. Cheers~

danso 9y ago

From what I would guess, you didn't see a flamewar because off-topic comments have been heavily downvoted and downmodded, pre-empting that situation. I do agree dang's lengthy responses here are unusual -- maybe Saturdays allow for more time to deliberate. But the mod action here seems consistent to what's applied on a regular basis on HN. The difference is that we're getting an explanation for actions we likely take for granted on an average day.