←back to thread

Thank you to dang and sctb

950 points sama | 6 comments | 22 Nov 18 20:26 UTC | HN request time: 1.065s | source | bottom

Dan and Scott do an incredible amount of work behind the scenes to make Hacker News what it is. I have never met two more thoughtful community stewards. They usually get more hate than thanks, which they deal with cheerfully. This community means a lot to a lot of people.

So today I wanted to say thanks, on behalf of the HN community.

Show context
sudosteph ◴[22 Nov 18 21:47 UTC] No.18512782[source]▶
dang really is a great moderator. He's got a good eye for spotting problematic behavior, and a level head for dealing with it. He's set me straight in the past, and I'm glad he did. The way he remains both professional and empathetic, even when dealing with sensitive users and topics, really exudes the best of hacker news ethos. Here's to you, dang!
replies(1): >>18513530 #
chris_wot[dead post] ◴[23 Nov 18 00:32 UTC] No.18513530[source]▶
Can't say I've experienced this, he treated me pretty badly in the past. Most times he is OK though.

By all means downvote me, btw. This backslapping post on the front page only wants to hear about how amazing the mods are, so the bias is pretty evident.

dieterrams ◴[23 Nov 18 04:42 UTC] No.18514411[source]▶
I vouched for (undeaded) your comment, since I think the flagging/downvoting runs contrary to the principles of discourse we're (at least implicitly) celebrating here, smelling of tribalism/favoritism. Just because you view someone favorably, and someone else claims something negative about that person, doesn't mean you just get to flagbomb them into oblivion.

The right response here is simply to ask for further substantiation, as danso did. It's not clear to me that the mods are directly responsible for what you've experienced. If you haven't, I would contact them for clarification.

replies(2): >>18514796 #>>18517749 #
1. pvg ◴[23 Nov 18 06:41 UTC] No.18514796[source]▶
smelling of tribalism/favoritism.

Downvoting something for complaining about votes is fairly normal. Downvote baiting on top is flagworthy. I imagine lots of people quite sensibly apply these as a matter of course.

replies(2): >>18514846 #>>18527408 #
2. dieterrams ◴[23 Nov 18 06:54 UTC] No.18514846[source]▶
One imagines they do. I'm not sure that's what's going on here, though.
replies(1): >>18515152 #
3. pvg ◴[23 Nov 18 08:29 UTC] No.18515152[source]▶
Why wouldn't exactly that be going on here? It's a grade-A downvotable, flaggable comment.
replies(2): >>18517727 #>>18558204 #
4. ◴[23 Nov 18 17:25 UTC] No.18517727{3}[source]▶
5. mercer ◴[25 Nov 18 16:11 UTC] No.18527408[source]▶
With some exceptions I downvote any comment that complains about downvotes. I'm not 100% comfortable about it, and I might change my approach, but so far rigorously applying the rules seems to be working. I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one to do so.
6. dieterrams ◴[29 Nov 18 04:55 UTC] No.18558204{3}[source]▶
Jesus Christ.

Suppose he is being treated unfairly by the mods. Is that not worth complaining about?

I don't give a crap about some silly "downvote every comment complaining about downvotes" rule. Complaining about downvotes was frowned upon because people get inexplicably downvoted as a matter of course here, and the frequency of complaints was deemed sufficiently detracting to warrant being frowned upon. Being treated unfairly by the mods, however, is another matter entirely.

I haven't seen a preponderance of evidence suggesting the complaint was ill-founded, and the guy's tenure and comment history (what I looked through of it) do not suggest he's an ill-mannered troll, so I reserve judgement as to whether the complaint is in the wrong. Like any reasonable person would.