https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang
Respect and many thanks, dang.
I would regularly get called a “nazi,” because I would step into catfights, and break them up, or “nip them in the bud.” Once you’ve been doing it a while, you learn to smell trouble brewing, and it can escalate rapidly.
Many folks chafe at restrictions, and they may actually be correct. They, themselves, may be entirely trustworthy; but others may not.
Generally, we’re all for rules and structure, as long as they apply to others (especially those with whom we disagree), but they shouldn’t apply to us.
I participate in HN, quite a bit. I basically avoid all other social media.
A big reason is the decorum, here. If it dissolves, then I will no longer participate.
I’ve been “danged” a few times. In some cases, I felt that it was not what I considered “reasonable,” but I accept the slaps anyway.
When in an Italian city, wear a bedsheet, and all that…
I recall having a +80 upvote or so reply “detached” in this way, but can’t find the link.
I looked for posts that match your description and found these three:
It looks like we detached https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27058506 from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27058435 because it was offtopic - and probably also several other of the reasons I listed at the above link.
Looks like we detached https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28695222 from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28694236 for similar reasons.
Looks like we detached https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30749836 from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30748070 for similar reasons.
In all 3 cases, the original parent was a massive subthread, probably at the top of the page. When child threads develop under top-heavy subthreads and cause discussion to drift in a generic direction, away from the original topic, that's a problem for thread quality. This is one of the most common times when we detach subthreads. All 3 examples look like classic cases to me.
Moderating top subthreads in this and other ways is probably the single biggest thing that moderators do here to promote thread quality. It makes a huge difference. We've learned a lot about this in the last few years.
By the way, none of this is necessarily a problem with the detached comment, nor does it imply anything bad about your (i.e. the child commenter's) intent. Often the child comment has been posted for exactly the right reason—thoughtful conversation. But if it takes a step away from the original topic in a generic direction, or a flameprone direction, upvotes and replies often start pouring in, skewing the thread as a whole in a way that makes it less interesting.
In other words, this is not just the fault of the child commenter (and maybe not at all). It's a co-creation along with all the other repliers and upvoters.
The more we learn, the clearer it gets that we need to moderate not specific posts, but subthreads. Subthreads are the unit of HN comment moderation. (Edit: doesn't that mean—someone will ask—that you could maliciously derail/destroy a subthread by adding bad comments to it? No, because we can detach those. That's case (2) in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27132402.)
Understanding that online discussion gets less interesting as it gets more generic is one of the bedrock principles here. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
EDIT: I wonder if trolls deliberately wait for and then target top main-threads, in order to maximize the blast radius of their trolling.
People also do the opposite - writing a toplevel comment to discuss (berate, more often than not) multiple other comments - 'I can't believe the nattering nabobs of negativism that have been commenting here, etc'.
In both cases, writing a good, non-repetitive, non-meta toplevel comment is probably better but it's more work and potentially unsatisfying - a lot of the time, a comment like that will in fact be lost in a big discussion.
Probably not on the busiest posts (though those are something of a conversational lost cause already), but on most typical discussions without excessive comments, yes.
I'll admit to tailing dang's comments periodically, or searching for specific terms when people challenge / inquire about my own takes on comments. (Most often in the case of dupe / non-dupe article submissions, occasionally others.)
Clickbait titles are de-baited. Indirect links are disintermediated. Divergent distracting comments are downweighted.
Much of my own interaction with the HN mod team (ask dang, I email fairly frequently, probably a few times a week) are with regard to link or title issues.
I'll also occasionally try to steer a discussion back on track with a top-level comment I hope more directly addresses the post than many early takes do. This isn't always successful, but I've been surprised several times where my own late-in-the discussion comment ends up highly-placed in the thread. One key is to really fight back against expressing frustration (the comments are usually born from an excess of that), and just lay out a strong case for an alternative take on what seems significant.
I actually did express that frustration out loud in this thread ... and dang commented on the initial-conditions aspect:
I'm not actually proposing this, but that makes me curious how well that could be modeled via deep learning.
For example https://playvalorant.com/en-us/news/announcements/valorant-v...
> As part of a larger effort to combat disruptive behavior, Riot Games recently updated its Privacy Notice and Terms of Service to allow us to record and evaluate in-game voice communications when a report for that type of behavior is submitted—with the goal of kicking this off in VALORANT first.
I believe it would be quite possible. Text is a bit dryer to work with but has the advantage of being all text.
Not sure how well it's working out.
I hear constant stories about how "blunt instrument" these are, and how it's impossible to appeal.
We have a team of moderators and as mentioned before you can "smell" something brewing. The words, to whom they are directed, etc.
A couple of years ago we started using Perspective API [0], a Google service "Using machine learning to reduce toxicity online". We use the toxicity model, trained by Google and The NY Times. Basically we submit the text of posts and replies and receive a score. We do some account history calculations and if it's past a certain threshold then moderators receive a notification - we can't read all posts in our platform all the time but this helps a lot.
The community itself helps too, and the reporting tool is used when things happen that we aren't aware.
We're at least a couple decades beyond the point where a reasonable person could possibly entertain such a thought. Lack of restrictions always turns communities into cesspools. They don't necessarily die, but the people that hang out there are the ones that enjoy spending time in cesspools, and that's usually different from the vision the creator of the site had in mind.
When we can't assume one or the other we have to look at something else where we might reach a conclusion. If someone says they are oppressed we can look at what would hinder their oppression. Arguably this would be things like transparency, participation and equality. As those things make oppression harder.
So if someone says they are being silenced a reasonable person might look if there are multiple known moderators who can check each other, a moderation log to see how moderation is happening or some voting system to reflect the opinions of the community.
In most cases where people are says they are being silenced these things doesn't exist. As such it would be unreasonable to dismiss their opinion as there seems to be an argument for the restrictions not being legitimate. Otherwise you just create a different cesspool of unreasonable people.
Presumably you disagree, but then you disagree with the far majority of well regarded implementations in the real world. I am about to buy an apartment and it is the same thing. You need a witness, a contract and approval from the housing organization. Because that how you reasonably decide what happened.
And yes, people break the news all the time. For example on Twitter on this very post. That is the point. When they do how do you know who is reasonable? Which is what I have argued.
the ycombinator web UI does not encourage real-time or even near-time responses.
- click on my user name
- click on comments
- search/scroll to this thread and see your reply
I don't get notified of comment replies like on reddit. there is no slack/email page of DMs/PMs.
I had no idea about this until someone mentioned it. Prior to that I couldn't be bothered very often to check my comments for replies. It was too many steps and made me feel narcissistic for doing all that just to see.
edit- spelling.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/th...
Sure HN has its pains (and I'm an unconditional of the late n-gate site) but they don't come from moderation shenanigans.
I also appreciate the pedagogy I often see. Some participants here have never been actively moderated and dang takes the time to explain as if the moderated person was one of the 10000 of the day.
Respect and many thanks, dang.
Paul really should fund an AI startup focused on chatboard moderation based solely on learnings-from-dang.
Additionally, he tends to favor the original aggressor, ignoring the concept of instigation to fix the proximate cause of the negative interactions here. Don’t get caught punching second, in other words.
It’s classic utilitarianism; if 1% of users get shat upon by dang, and 99% in any way benefit from his negative behavior, I suppose the folks here would be alright with that?
Can you give an example? I just went through dang's comments in the last few days and found nothing of the sort, and it has not been my experience at all, unless posting an unpopular opinion counts as instigation. Dang's pattern, every time I've been witness to his moderation, is to cut the first comment that descends into incivility or flaming.
Conversations on HN sometimes get heated. Some people take people disagreeing with them as a personal attack and quickly descend into actual personal attacks in response. Those people may feel like they're being singled out by dang, but it's because they actually are misbehaving.
A pattern he follows very commonly is seen here [0]: "Can you stop doing $thing?" However, it's dang's opinion that $thing is occurring, and he makes zero effort to understand why $thing could even be happening, and further entertains zero challenges to his interpretation of what has taken place. It's, "stop doing $thing, which is definitely happening, or else I will ban you."
Here's another good example of dang handling moderation poorly [1]: he spends zero time explaining the situation, zero time listening to the perspective of the "accused", and simply, curtly, dismisses that person from the site.
Ironically, dang's intervention is often the most toxic behavior in a comment chain, and these examples are what I found in just the past two hours.
There are thousands, or more, people treated this way, and instead of concern, praise is constantly dumped on him, like what he's doing is some incredible or even desirable behavior! The assumption is the site is better off without these people he treats poorly on it, but I doubt any rigor has been placed on that assumption whatsoever.
I was 'danged' once, after I angrily responded to someone who made an outrageous comment to me, attacking me strongly for saying cheating was bad. Dang objected to my comment. I said, what the other guy said was much worse! Dang hadn't even read the other guy's comment, which seemed so unfair.
He explained to me that it doesn't matter what the other guy said. "Punching second" or in any order, is not ok on here. Read the comment guidelines. He said that being on HN is a continual exercise is not being triggered, in not commenting while angry. They were wise words which I think greatly improved my HN comments, or at least I don't do those triggered, snarky, cutting responses any more, or almost never. No matter what the other guy said. Silence is often the best response, or the only good one. That someone else is being an asshole on here is no reason to join them.
You are apparently fairly new here, and seem to have little idea of the massive number of comments written on HN each day. I looked at the first couple of pages of your recent comments, and most of them have a very unpleasant, hostile tone. You are in no position to criticize dang. Read the "In comments" section of the guidelines, the part starting "Be kind. Don't be snarky." A lot of your comments break them.
Any comment citing "newguidelines.html" should probably get flagged for review, for example.
I also am not new here, but imagine why I might seem to be...