←back to thread

Two HN Announcements

(blog.ycombinator.com)
698 points tilt | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
raldi ◴[] No.10298588[source]
> If we notice abusive vouches, we'll take away vouching rights

That might scare some people away from vouching. Could you clarify whether it'll be more like, "If you wrongly vouch for even one single thing, we'll silently and permanently remove your vouching ability forever with no possible recourse" or more like, "If you show a repeated pattern of bad vouching, we'll reach out to you and explain what you're doing wrong, and only if it continues, take away your vouching privileges as a last resort, perhaps only temporarily" (or somewhere in between those extremes)?

P.S. I couldn't be happier to hear about Dan's promotion. He has an expert touch for community management, and (I learned after an opportunity to join him for beers one night) some deep wisdom on the subject, too.

replies(3): >>10298625 #>>10298648 #>>10298968 #
dang ◴[] No.10298648[source]
Please don't worry about this. It really is just like flagging. We only take away flagging rights if someone repeatedly misuses them—never for one random thing.

I wouldn't have even included the bit about taking away vouching rights except I know that the question "What if people just vouch for all the bad comments" was going to come up otherwise.

(Also, I don't think I've been promoted? But thanks—that's particularly meaningful coming from a seasoned veteran of the early Reddit...)

replies(6): >>10298687 #>>10298761 #>>10298834 #>>10299345 #>>10300168 #>>10304498 #
kragen ◴[] No.10298761[source]
Are you saying you'll be more reluctant to take away flagging rights than to take away commenting rights? Or do you feel that everyone who's been shadowbanned has in fact repeatedly misused their commenting rights?
replies(3): >>10298797 #>>10299079 #>>10301820 #
dang ◴[] No.10298797[source]
Those feel like gotcha questions.
replies(1): >>10299800 #
1. kragen ◴[] No.10299800[source]
Well, I didn't want to just contradict you and say that you are proposing that we do something that we don't in fact have the capacity to do. I wanted to give you the opportunity to explain how we do in fact have the capacity to do it, despite the appearance that we don't.

Best wishes.

replies(1): >>10299873 #
2. dang ◴[] No.10299873[source]
It sounds like I might have misread your intention (sorry), but I still don't understand the question. If you want to try again, I'll try to answer.