8 ms·

No, here's what you do: 1) you ban people who are rude and who you disagree with philosophically, while you do NOT ban the equally rude people who you agree wi

by gohjo 12y ago

No, here's what you do: 1) you ban people who are rude and who you disagree with philosophically, while you do NOT ban the equally rude people who you agree with. For evidence of the above, look at users like etherael (and his other names; not sure if he tors/vpns or if you can find them), who are raging assholes on a semi-routine basis, but who aren't banned because Libertarian BitCoin Lover matches your values. And let's face facts, you're less willing to ban people who agree with you, even if they're toxic assholes. If you banned people who you agreed with for the same exact crimes as those you disagree with HN would be a better place. As it stands, people who agree with you are allowed to be ruder and more toxic than people who disagree with you. This is used as a game by some of HN's worst users who brag on IRC about how it's fun to try to engage in flamewars where they don't get banned but the other individual does. edit: Not to mention other game that's played by a lot of folks, which is to be as big of a dick as is possible without actually using openly aggressive language. The goal there being to generate an emotional reaction while retaining some semblance of plausible deniability, because everybody knows that you won't ban them for "polite" taunting, even if it's toxic shit that can't go anywhere useful or interesting.

dang 12y ago
The people who hold the opposite ideology believe fervently that HN is biased the other way (liberal, politically correct, socialist, etc., are some of the terms they use). I realize it's a bit facile to say "both sides claim bias therefore we must be doing something right". But for what it's worth, no, we don't consider ideology when banning people, we consider incivility.
- gohjo 12y ago
  Which is why many toxic people have perfected the art of being an enormous asshole while being "civil". Because they know that you allow that to happen. As to your claim that you aren't soft on Libertarians... LOL. I've actually A/B tested this, saying the same toxic shit but with the positions swapped. Upvoted in one case, banned in the other. Part of the mechanic might be that you never even see the Libertarian version because it doesn't get flagged in the first place, despite being identical in profanity, intelligence, and toxicity to the version that does get flagged. but whatever the causes, there's a real and definite bias as to what positions are tolerated here. --- Response to below: Etherael gives good conversation like: "Congratulations, you are a retard." "I have no hopes for you at all." "Get off that lawn, you old crank." "Why is this being downvoted? Are people really so naive as to not be aware of this?" --- " Because when you present a point in this way with this kind of language and in this kind of behavior, you just lose everything." You're right. I have the same amount of respect for dang as he has for the public at large. And that's my fault. I should be better, even if I really believe that HN is worse and less useful each year, and that dang is poorly suited to moderation. He's probably a smart guy, but we're all just apes, and he's one who isn't the right fit for the job.
  - selmnoo 12y ago
    > No offense kid, but you're fucking delusional. And HN is worse because of your inability to self-reflect. Even if you had a point, you just lost it. Because when you present a point in this way with this kind of language and in this kind of behavior, you just lose everything. I'm a pretty skeptical person (see my skepticism on my last comment, for example!) who views most actions by most companies very skeptically and tries to see if there might be ulterior motives. And I've gotta say, you're wrong in this instance. > As to your claim that you aren't soft on Libertarians. They're not (they're not soft/hard based on ideological beliefs). For example, DanielBMarkham, perhaps the most outspoken libertarian on this site, is rankbanned. Now, I do have serious doubts about whether or not they're "soft" on folks saying negative things about YC companies/people. Lastly, I've gotten to know etherael quite well -- he's got a sharp tongue, but he never quite struck me as an asshole. I do know that he's very talented at what he does, and almost always provides good, intelligent conversation about anything I bring up to him - and in that way, fits right at home here on HN. I guess though maybe you caught him in a bad time being especially rude? The best of us lose it sometimes. I hope etherael is more thoughtful in his future replies.
etherael 12y ago
The worst I ever do is respond rudely to people who have already attacked me, and even there I try to avoid doing so. As for using other names that's just flatly false, as is any gloating about baiting people into flamewars and laughing when they get banned. I haven't even used irc in over a year. Basically I have no idea what you're talking about.
- gohjo 12y ago
  Your post history has multiple occurrences of you calling people retarded. You're so full of shit it's fucking ridiculous. Just fuck off back into your whole, you professional troll.
  - etherael 12y ago
    > respond rudely to people who have already attacked me I didn't deny that > and even there I try to avoid doing so. I just said that, like for example right now.
    - likeagrownup 12y ago
      Got it. Thanks for confirming that you're an asshole who is happy to subject thousands of people to valueless bullshit because you require the last word. If dang had balls, you'd be banned for that shit. But he lacks balls when it comes to idiots like you, Dan.
      - etherael 12y ago
        Keep stalking. You amuse me.
        likeagrownup 12y ago
        So now replying is 'stalking'. The fact that you aren't banned is 100% proof tat dang is a completely gutless and worthless moderator.
tptacek 12y ago
Dan is a libertarian bitcoin lover? I've spent several hours in person talking to him. I'm a statist liberal Democrat who believes bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. He did not set off my spidey sense. I think you might be attributing generalized fears and frustrations onto specific people you don't know.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  sorry, it's a pyramid scheme not a ponzi scheme but yeah agree with your sentiment. although maybe it is a ponzi scheme for the miners now that I think about it.
- djur 12y ago
  Being in the same ideological quadrant, I can say that I tend to get as many or more upvotes on political comments as on apolitical/tech-focused comments. And I tend to follow responses to my more contentious comments closely, and I have only very occasionally noticed even a single downvote on said comments. I think there's a lot of outspoken libertarian/anti-statist types around here, and that's fine, but I don't think it's even the plurality among political stances of HN readers. I suspect being invested in politics to the point that you'll regularly engage in political discussions online is very strongly correlated with holding atypical political views (I include myself in that set).

by gohjo 12y ago

dang 12y ago

The people who hold the opposite ideology believe fervently that HN is biased the other way (liberal, politically correct, socialist, etc., are some of the terms they use). I realize it's a bit facile to say "both sides claim bias therefore we must be doing something right". But for what it's worth, no, we don't consider ideology when banning people, we consider incivility.

gohjo 12y ago
Which is why many toxic people have perfected the art of being an enormous asshole while being "civil". Because they know that you allow that to happen. As to your claim that you aren't soft on Libertarians... LOL. I've actually A/B tested this, saying the same toxic shit but with the positions swapped. Upvoted in one case, banned in the other. Part of the mechanic might be that you never even see the Libertarian version because it doesn't get flagged in the first place, despite being identical in profanity, intelligence, and toxicity to the version that does get flagged. but whatever the causes, there's a real and definite bias as to what positions are tolerated here. --- Response to below: Etherael gives good conversation like: "Congratulations, you are a retard." "I have no hopes for you at all." "Get off that lawn, you old crank." "Why is this being downvoted? Are people really so naive as to not be aware of this?" --- " Because when you present a point in this way with this kind of language and in this kind of behavior, you just lose everything." You're right. I have the same amount of respect for dang as he has for the public at large. And that's my fault. I should be better, even if I really believe that HN is worse and less useful each year, and that dang is poorly suited to moderation. He's probably a smart guy, but we're all just apes, and he's one who isn't the right fit for the job.
- selmnoo 12y ago
  > No offense kid, but you're fucking delusional. And HN is worse because of your inability to self-reflect. Even if you had a point, you just lost it. Because when you present a point in this way with this kind of language and in this kind of behavior, you just lose everything. I'm a pretty skeptical person (see my skepticism on my last comment, for example!) who views most actions by most companies very skeptically and tries to see if there might be ulterior motives. And I've gotta say, you're wrong in this instance. > As to your claim that you aren't soft on Libertarians. They're not (they're not soft/hard based on ideological beliefs). For example, DanielBMarkham, perhaps the most outspoken libertarian on this site, is rankbanned. Now, I do have serious doubts about whether or not they're "soft" on folks saying negative things about YC companies/people. Lastly, I've gotten to know etherael quite well -- he's got a sharp tongue, but he never quite struck me as an asshole. I do know that he's very talented at what he does, and almost always provides good, intelligent conversation about anything I bring up to him - and in that way, fits right at home here on HN. I guess though maybe you caught him in a bad time being especially rude? The best of us lose it sometimes. I hope etherael is more thoughtful in his future replies.

etherael 12y ago

The worst I ever do is respond rudely to people who have already attacked me, and even there I try to avoid doing so. As for using other names that's just flatly false, as is any gloating about baiting people into flamewars and laughing when they get banned. I haven't even used irc in over a year. Basically I have no idea what you're talking about.

gohjo 12y ago
Your post history has multiple occurrences of you calling people retarded. You're so full of shit it's fucking ridiculous. Just fuck off back into your whole, you professional troll.
- etherael 12y ago
  > respond rudely to people who have already attacked me I didn't deny that > and even there I try to avoid doing so. I just said that, like for example right now.
  - likeagrownup 12y ago
    Got it. Thanks for confirming that you're an asshole who is happy to subject thousands of people to valueless bullshit because you require the last word. If dang had balls, you'd be banned for that shit. But he lacks balls when it comes to idiots like you, Dan.
    - etherael 12y ago
      Keep stalking. You amuse me.
      - likeagrownup 12y ago
        So now replying is 'stalking'. The fact that you aren't banned is 100% proof tat dang is a completely gutless and worthless moderator.

tptacek 12y ago

Dan is a libertarian bitcoin lover? I've spent several hours in person talking to him. I'm a statist liberal Democrat who believes bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. He did not set off my spidey sense. I think you might be attributing generalized fears and frustrations onto specific people you don't know.

throwawayaway 12y ago
sorry, it's a pyramid scheme not a ponzi scheme but yeah agree with your sentiment. although maybe it is a ponzi scheme for the miners now that I think about it.
djur 12y ago
Being in the same ideological quadrant, I can say that I tend to get as many or more upvotes on political comments as on apolitical/tech-focused comments. And I tend to follow responses to my more contentious comments closely, and I have only very occasionally noticed even a single downvote on said comments. I think there's a lot of outspoken libertarian/anti-statist types around here, and that's fine, but I don't think it's even the plurality among political stances of HN readers. I suspect being invested in politics to the point that you'll regularly engage in political discussions online is very strongly correlated with holding atypical political views (I include myself in that set).