|
|
|
|
|
by neilv
2607 days ago
|
|
The first title I saw did sound a bit clickbaity, and it looked like someone later rewrote the title, and then tweaked the rewrite (changed "user" to "freelancer"). If the penalty for sounding clickbaity in the submitted title is that the post then won't be seen, that sounds plausibly appropriate, in the context of widespread poor media practices we're trying to improve. In this particular instance, such strict measures might be unfortunate, if the writer is raising a general industry situation, in which many of us might be involved without knowing it, and which situation should be improved. Would the writer be permitted to resubmit the post? |
|
In this case, I don't know if it makes sense to resubmit the post. It's obviously very important for the author; anyone can understand that. But it also doesn't contain enough information to gratify intellectual curiosity or feed a substantive discussion, which are the main criteria for whether something is on topic here. I think it would be ok to give it a try, though, and see how the community reacts. The author emailed us, so I'll let him know this by email.
A general point: something I didn't realize before moderating HN, but now know all too well, is that the reasons users give others for why they were banned are usually inaccurate. Sometimes that's because they leave out critical information about what they did. Other times it's because they really have no clue why they were banned. And it can easily be both of these. As a result, these stories tend to be misleadingly one-sided, so the default response should usually be to suspend judgement until more information is available. That's just a general comment—not about this particular story.