Comments can be [dead] for many reasons, including software (which doesn't get everything right) or the account being banned (which doesn't mean that every post is bad—indeed, some users start posting good comments only once we've banned them). So there are plenty of good comments that need to be rescued, which is why we introduced vouching in the first place. It works well when users use it.
Thanks.
We're always happy to restore privileges if people give us reason to believe that they've had a change of heart and want to use HN as intended in the future.
With it having been there a while, I can't think of any specific comments one way or another, but was and have always intended to use it to rescue (typically) a comment making a good point to the discussion, or the question I'd be interested in an answer to as well.
So I can't imagine how I crossed whatever line. I generally agree wth the tone of moderation here, and degree of leeway usually given. I think my comment history would bear out in tone and style that I'm using as intended, and I don't recall ever having had a mod pick up any of my comments. :p I disagree with the odd rare one - this is hard to generalise without going away to dig for examples - usually where it seems to get a slap on the wrist for a reasonable, or historically accurate point within the flow of a discussion where the complaint of nationalistic or whatever seems a bit of a stretch.
Case in point, the guy posting links that seemed to be reliably going on every climate related topic - I'd have said nowt for one or two, but had seen enough, like on every related post I'd read in a couple of days, that I thought it would have been missed by mods and worth a mention. Others trigger much sooner than I.
Make of that as you will. :)
There can also be words that some people find offensive. Not everybody agrees on the words that qualify.
Decades on the net has been an interesting education that some, for some reason especially American, don't recognise sarcasm without the helpful /s. I learnt to pull my punches online on that score years ago. On the [vouch] front I'm not hugely bothered as it doesn't really detract from using HN, more surprised as I don't generally trigger moderator interest anywhere I've been since BBS days.
I'm sure dang will respond in due course as to whether I rate forgiveness or not.
Edit: I should add that I would think it highly unlikely I'd have resurrected comments heavy with sarcasm, I've been well aware for years it doesn't fly around here.
Sarcasm and snark rarely improve the quality and direction of a discussion, which is why at least snark is explicitly mentioned in the guidelines. Whether or not one recognizes something as sarcasm is orthogonal to whether a comment overall appropriate and constructive for the forum, and the latter is an overriding concern.
> "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
The opposite can also happen, particularly when somebody has a belief system very different from your own. You might wrongly assume that the comment is sarcasm, when in fact it is thoughtful and substantive.
It's honestly confusing that you're telling us this at all.
That's of course not to say that it's widely known, many details of HN are not well-documented, only mentioned occasionally.
EDIT: just checked a few dead links. It seems I do have the ability to vouch. I'll try to use it responsibly!