Hacker News Guidelines

It is unfortunate that the rules are so vague/up for interpretation, and when you break them, it isn't explained to you that you broke them. The rule just gets cited and there you go.

I've found that dang is very open to discussion about these sorts of things. He's only an email away, and usually responds quickly.

I've found the complete opposite: it took years to even get a dismissive response, and longer to get him to actually bother looking into what I wrote. Depends whether you pass his initial guess at whether you have a real issue or are trolling him, apparently.

I imagine he gets a lot of trolling emails. It can't be easy keeping up with it; I barely keep up with my own email, and I rarely get email.

Rules have to be vague to some extent no? Because language and people are vague.

If it was precise then that'd be a 500 page legal document for site guidelines.

Yes, but if the goal is to help people participate, explaining what they did wrong rather than "we don't do that here" helps.

If the goal is "we only want people like us here" then keeping the status quo is good.

Dang responds, but he won't say what you did wrong. I kind of understand, but also not really.

Well, yes, I sympathize, but it is his job.

Since he doesn't work for us, I don't find that fact as persuasive as you do.

I spend half my day (or what feels like it) telling people what they did "wrong", i.e. what they did that led to whatever they experienced that they didn't like. The trouble is that these explanations are expensive: it takes time and energy to track the specifics, deliver the information in a clear enough form that, proof it against possible misunderstanding or unintended offensiveness, and then go back-and-forth with the user when the information isn't clear enough or lands the wrong way. It's impossible to do a satisfactory job of this in every case, even though one wants to—the only option is to approximate.

Since you've mentioned twice that you didn't get an explanation, I'd be curious to see the case that you didn't get an explanation about. Is there a link? Usually when people remain upset about something long after the fact, it's for good reason.

I'd be interested in what took years—can you explain? My worst case in terms of responding to emails is a few months—which is terrible, but happens when (a) the inbox is backed up and (b) the request requires more than a little time.

It doesn't really depend on whether I think someone's trolling, because the response is usually much the same in either case and anyhow genuine trolling (i.e. totally bad-faith action to provoke or waste time) is relatively rare.

If you don't get a timely response, try sending a follow-up or reminder message.

I've sent a lot of HN mod mail over the years, and usually get a response within a few hours. Occasionally a few days, during busy times, and on a very small handful of instances, an apology for missing or overlooking an email. I think all of those have occurred within 1--2 weeks tops.

I try to keep most correspondence short, sweet, single-focused, and direct. (Most of that concerns submissions: titles, URLs, or nominations to the 2nd chance pool.)

Occasionally I address more complex or difficult issues. Dang emailed me a few days ago noting that he's still meaning to reply to series on one topic (not pressing, though interesting). I'm aware that he's pressed and that there are more urgent priorities. But he does go out of his way to stay on top of things.

(I also owe him a reminder on another issue, also fairly minor, I'd raised a couple of months back.)

Keep in mind that mods are ingesting a firehose and that complicated or poorly-scoped questions or issues might be difficult to respond to. (This is a general principle to keep in mind when corresponding, not just for HN mods.)

That's in many ways deliberate, and I'd argue to positive effect.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37256792>

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34032058>

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27307680>

I find it very odd that a 16 year old web service with user accounts has no method of contacting the moderators other than email.

I have no desire to take HN "offline" and pollute my inbox/outbox with a bunch of moderation notes. That's too annoying.

It might be slightly better if every submission and comment had a mailto: that automatically populated a new email with a link, but even then, this shouldn't be necessary.

Except, mods don't elaborate.

I guess we're the product, then.

Well, I'm rate limited here, when it was never my intent to say anything that was incorrect, and I thought I always behaved in good faith as best I could.

I don't think you need to go back and forth with users. You don't actually need to do anything - this is just my opinion.

I do apologize if it caused you any grief, that wasn't my intention either.

I thought that was clear all along. This is all just a scheme for YC to get access to the deal flow for your next great idea.

Except of course that they do, though given volume and repetitiveness of moderation issues, this isn't in all cases, and often points to earlier threads:

A general search showing links to rationale / reasons: <by:dang please don't https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=>

You can also typically search Algolia for "by:dang" + the text used to describe what guideline was transgressed.

As I've noted elsewhere, HN operates on frictions and nudges: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37137757>

And you can always email mods for clarification, as has been noted several times already in this thread. Dang explicitly includes this option when banning established accounts in many cases.

In large part though, HN presumes adult behaviour, which includes the ability and inclination to research for yourself what you might have done wrong.

We're not talking about immature behavior, I'm specifically talking about things like people who have some disability, or people who are culturally different than the majority of HN, being largely excluded.

How would that improve things if only a tiny fraction of users actually remember and understand even half of the 500 pages?

The adult behaviour I'd specified was "the ability and inclination to research for yourself what you might have done wrong". I fail to see at all how this would exclude anyone who might otherwise be capable of productively engaging with HN.

If you don't mind a late addition, it's also responding to comments as written, and not as one would prefer for them to have been written, as you're raising an objection not grounded in what I'd said.

Not all adults have that capacity.

If you don't mind, could you give some examples of what conditions interfere with what parts of that process, whilst preserving the capacity to otherwise engage productively on HN?

I misremembered: you replied to the initial email and then stopped responding because (you explained much later in another conversation) my continued angry questions appeared to match the profile of a type of angry time-sink user.

I think people with learning disabilities and people who do not understand the tone they are expressing over the internet can still contribute positively to conversations, they just need a little bit of grace.

What do you mean by 500 pages?

Ah, I see. Sorry if I made the wrong call about that. I definitely do not always get it right.

The parent comment your replying to?

Given the limitations described, what accommodations or "grace" do you propose?

I've already outlined that: clear expectations & when someone does something wrong, but otherwise seems to behave in good faith, explanations.