[thr3290]

> timestamp on the paper: 10:40. ..... It was 2:20PM

So this guy sets off the alarm (swab probably found traces of explosives ), has no paperwork in order (proof of work), and has to wait for 3 hours before it gets resolved.

Last time the HN crowd was enraged over someone who was questioned for 15 minutes...

I was detained overnight, and some of my friends were denied entry to US for bullshit reasons... It is like a different planet.

[literallycancer]

>has no paperwork in order (proof of work)

Oh? I must have missed the law that required people to do be able to prove where they work at all times.

>and has to wait for 3 hours before it gets resolved

By this time, I hadn’t had any food or water in almost eighteen hours.

Learning to read would be a good start.

[thr3290]

Did you ever cross international border?

My reading is just fine, read the article. He was 'fasting' before security check. And he should say it is a medical emergency, if he felt like passing out.

[dang]

Please don't create many obscure throwaway accounts; we ban those. HN is a community. Anonymity is fine, but users should have some consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be an entirely different forum.

[Cpoll]

I think you're the only consistent identity that I recognize, because you post this a lot :)

I always have some concerns when I see it:

- Obviously controversial (but not clearly trolling) posts like thr3290's can't be made without potentially endangering the poster (we've seen people fired for public or semi-public remarks e.g. "donglegate"). I feel that this would have a chilling effect on voices that go against the common sentiment on HN.

I for one would not be comfortable using my account to make a comment like that one, which means that with your rules, my opinion would be suppressed (hypothetically speaking - I don't agree wth thr3290).

- "We ban those" isn't corroborated by any clear HN code of conduct. I (perhaps incorrectly) recall reading one at some point, but I'm currently hard-pressed to find it.

- It's not obvious to people who don't know you that you're a moderator. Your account doesn't have any clear demarcation, and you don't mention it in your profile.

[dang]

Oh of course, throwaways are legit when the topic is personally sensitive. Some of the best HN discussions happen that way; for example there was one the other day where a couple of throwaway accounts discussed what it's like to be non-criminal psychopaths. Obviously we'd never get that without throwaways. But that is easily distinguished from the users who routinely create throwaways in order to completely depersonalize their comments. The latter is actually an attack on the foundation of HN. Legit throwaways are actually highly personal—often more personal than the main account.

On HN, commenters have a personal identity (which of course can be a pseudonym if you want). If some users want a site where there are no such identities, only free-floating comments with comment IDs, they should find or create such a site and participate there instead. There's room for lots of different kinds of internet forums. HN is just one kind, but it is that kind, and the reason we have moderation, including account bannage, is to preserve it as the kind of site it's meant to be.

[Cpoll]

> On HN, commenters have a personal identity (which of course can be a pseudonym if you want). If some users want a site where there are no such identities, only free-floating comments with comment IDs, they should find or create such a site and participate there instead. There's room for lots of different kinds of internet forums. HN is just one kind, but it is that kind, and the reason we have moderation, including account bannage, is to preserve it as the kind of site it's meant to be.

I don't digest HN this way, at least - I prefer to separate the message from the person writing it. I'm also pleased to note that there are far fewer comment-reviewing/ad-hominem rebuttals on HN than on Reddit, and far fewer 'celebrities'.

On the flip side, I'm aware of some of the downsides of anonymous posting, so I can't disagree with you there.

I'm just afraid that a lot of times that you warn against throwaways, it's towards a controversial post (that's usually downvoted for being unpopular, but not otherwise against the rules of the site). I believe those posts have a lot of value, at least in reminding people that there are other perspectives and that nothing is 'obvious' (and maybe getting them a bit more passionate :) ). I'm afraid of these disappearing, as I've seen happen on sub-reddits that become debate-free echo-chambers.

[literallycancer]

>there was one the other day where a couple of throwaway accounts discussed what it's like to be non-criminal psychopaths

Do you mind linking it? I found something, but I'm not sure whether it was the one you meant.