Dang worship is just one example of how HN is no better than any other social media, and the fact that he still has a job is an indication it may be meaningfully worse.
How are you so certain you've the correct position on anything, if you can't consider other points of view? How can you understand others actions if you will not listen to their attempts to explain their motivations?
He doesn't do any of that, he just states some basic, "Stop doing <value judgement about user's behavior>." No discussion, no insight gathering, nothing.
He's a garbage moderator. You can literally observe it in his comment history [0]. His most recent comment (at time of writing)[1] exemplifies this perfectly:
> You don't have to agree with anyone's views but this style of argument is deathly to the curious conversation we want here.
No, it is not. This is simply wrong, and "this style" is dismissive and rude. But that's not up for debate, as dang has decreed it so. The only reason he writes anything at all here is to explain why the person is, to him, wrong. Zero attempt whatsoever to understand an alternative perspective.
Awful, terrible moderation skills.
Very often it's "stop breaking the guideline", or "stop participating in flamewars" - so not much to go on. Often the next comment is "which guideline did I break" or "What do you mean by flamewar/why is this a flamewar?" - which goes unanswered.
Other times, users will participate in blatant trolling, or obvious (non subjective) rule breaking and get far more detail/response.
It feels like dang/mods aren't exactly sure of what the moderation rules should be, so simply don't answer difficult questions..
That said, what is the benchmark for moderation? Reddit? The internet standard is so low, HN is great in comparison.
How is removing "tendentious meta-debates" aka "controversial topics not directly related to the main thread" compatible with "On-topic: Anything .. interesting ... anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" or even "seasoned talking points aren't on topic here"?
(though it does match "Avoid unrelated controversies".. Guess those are never interesting to good hackers?)
> If you want to debate the moderators
I think the issue is they don't want to debate the mods. Or specifically, for the mods to debate them. I feel there's a difference moderating the meta-aspects of a debate (style, relevance etc), and participating in a debate.
If by project you mean whatever dang says it is, then sure it's what dang says it is. If you mean a community forum, no, dang just had an opinion. The fact that you agree with that opinion and so don't care to be convinced otherwise don't change that it's just an opinion.
> Dan has explained over and over again, in great detail
There may have been an explanation, but no discussion - but would you just argue that this wouldn't be interesting or productive? You're satisfied so why would you care about inconsistent modding?
And nobody said anything about debating anyone, I'm wholly uninterested in dang's perspective at this point, he's made his lack of ability in this area perfectly clear.
It's also perfectly clear how little is in his toolbox to enforce his decisions however, so I suppose it's mostly a wash.
Also I think it's the literal definition of hubris to disagree with, "what may be tendentious to you is not to someone else" but I'm guessing you don't really care about hypocritical shit like that.
I feel no such compunction, so: This guy seems to be hiding behind a new handle; for what reason(s), we can speculate.
If it's the case that you don't have to share the same politics, then please explain why:
> if you're wholly uninterested in Dan's perspective on things, this place is probably not a great hang for you
But "the fact that he still has a job" is too far - HN should rethink it's moderation for the greater good, but HN will hardly die otherwise.