Hacker News Reader

Comment by dang | Hacker News Reader

We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamebait and unsubstantive comments. That's not allowed here.

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. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

(Edit: actually I took a second look and your account history doesn't seem to be as I described it above—perhaps I got my wires crossed—so I've unbanned it for now. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like that though! It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.)

View on HN

This is pretty off brand for HN, really. Even if you don't agree, that doesn't make it "flamebait" , the queen also was fine with sending Alan Turing to jail for being gay, I can find many other things along those lines. I don't understand the need to protect the image in this forum of a person who has not done anything really for regular people. YC being an american company makes it even worst, we here in the US don't own any kind of respect or courtesy to any royal, is literally part of the Oath of Allegiance. If you personally loved the queen, maybe don't read the comments? Otherwise be consistent and also ban people commenting on how bad russians are.

Pretty sure "She died as she lived, protecting pedophiles and dodging taxes" is about the most "on-brand" ban you can get here.*

This is zero to do with image protection; I couldn't care less. What I care about, when doing this job, is not having dumb flamewars. There's not a lot more to it than that.

I'm sure it's my fault for not being clearer, but you guys are taking this completely the wrong way if you think it has a whit to do with monarchism. It has to do with internet comments. That's all.

More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771818 in case it helps.

* but we wouldn't ban an established account for just one comment, and it looks like I made a mistake about that account's history, so I've unbanned it now. I wouldn't have done that if you hadn't replied, so thanks!

I get were you are coming from, but what I'm trying to say is: when someone considered evil by us (in the west) dies, would you hold the same standards? I respect what you do, and I know is super hard. I don't mean to be toxic or anything, just pointing out what I feel is important.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but since you asked above if we "ban people commenting on how bad russians are", the answer is sure: nationalistic flamebait is not welcome on HN and we ask people to stop doing it and ban them if they don't stop doing it.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Banning vs. just scolding depends on what else the account has done on HN, but we don't moderate differently depending on the country people are talking about—or at least we try not to.

Needless to say, that particular case is complicated by the war, but commenters can make their substantive points about that without attacking any ethnic group.

Prince Andrew is a pedophile, it's not unsubstantiated, that's a monstrous thing to allege.

Unsubstantive ≠ unsubstantiated.

Unsubstantive, not unsubstantiated.

Also, a true & correct comment would be unsubstantiated anyway (if that had been what dang had said) if it lacked reference or other such 'evidence'. It doesn't mean 'untrue'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com