←back to thread

Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

(playhearthstone.com)
2525 points hownottowrite | 3 comments | 08 Oct 19 09:23 UTC | HN request time: 3.733s | source
Show context
rjzzleep ◴[08 Oct 19 11:24 UTC] No.21191018[source]▶
Have we all forgotten when Mozilla replaced the CTO with a long history of internet freedom work to replace him with a marketing director and the disaster that followed?

Are we going to keep trampling on all our freedoms in the name of ... freedom(?) and then blame it all on China?

EDIT: I knew some people were going to try to spin it into something it wasn't.

replies(4): >>21191038 #>>21191512 #>>21194934 #>>21194937 #
dang ◴[08 Oct 19 17:48 UTC] No.21194937[source]▶
Surely not another flamewar about that. Would you please review the site guidelines, paying special attention to this one?

"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21190597 and marked it very off-topic.

replies(1): >>21198872 #
1. rjzzleep ◴[09 Oct 19 00:50 UTC] No.21198872[source]▶
If you look carefully the controversial discussion wasn't started by me but by the comment Steltek wrote below my post. I think you do owe me the courtesy of recognizing this and in that case detaching that comment might have been the right course of action instead of throwing threats towards me.

It is relevant in the sense that in the sciences department (FOR NOW) we don't judge scientific discovery or papers by their ethnicity or political opinion, but rather on the basis of their scientific merit. Although this too seems to be quickly fading away, judging from the daily comments I'm seeing on my Facebook stream.

replies(1): >>21199220 #
2. dang ◴[09 Oct 19 01:52 UTC] No.21199220[source]▶
I don't mean to pick on you personally, but it was clearly your comment that brought in the "unrelated controversy and generic tangent" that the site guidelines ask users to avoid. Steltek ought not to have stoked the flames, but the fate of the thread was already determined at that point, which is why phrase that guideline that way.

I'm sorry you felt like I was throwing threats at you—definitely not how I want a comment like that to come across.

replies(1): >>21213309 #
3. rjzzleep ◴[10 Oct 19 11:44 UTC] No.21213309[source]▶
Ok, I appreciate the clarification