It wasn't the user flagging that caused this, it happened from one moment to another:
http://hnrankings.info/17399895/
The moderators do not deny being responsible for it.
The moderators do not deny being responsible for it.
How can you tell? Something being flagged by users looks exactly like this. Things rise to the front page, get more attention and age slightly, a few flags come in and push down the ranking.
I will concede though, I technically can't tell. However, if "a few flags" really can push an article from the front page down to page 10 within the course of five minutes I still have the following to say:
1. This system is easily abused
2. Accepting these flags on an article like this is accepting abuse, which is the purview of moderation
In other words, the system is laid out to hide anything that a few users don't like to be seen and the moderation supports that tacitly.
Why?
This sort of eternal argument doesn't lead anywhere, and I'm not seeing much indication of good faith here, just battling for one side against another. That happens to be a continuation of just what we're asking you not to do. If you want to smite enemies, please do it someplace else.
I refuse your attempt at categorizing me. This isn't a battle. I don't want any "pro-SJW" content hidden from the front page either, just because a few people don't like it. That's not what user flagging is good for.
My point stands: As moderators, why do you accept these bad-faith flags that have a huge impact on visibility? With this policy, you are supporting the extremists on both ends.
I recommend family therapy.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.