[antidesitter]

> Your first comment upthread was obviously unsubstantive

Which one? The one asking for a source on an incredible claim? That's not welcome on HN?

Regarding the cases you linked to, only the first and last are valid. The second and third (which are the same, so I have no idea why you posted two links) don't violate any HN guidelines, as a careful reading of the conversation would make obvious.

[dang]

You're right actually; that one was ok. The reply was not ok.

I'm also not ok with "Don't be ridiculous, dang"—responding to a request not to break the site guidelines by flagrantly breaking them again signals bad faith and a desire not to use the site as intended. If I were going strictly by probability, it would make the most sense to just ban you for that, because commenters who react that way almost never reform. I won't do that now, but please just correct how you're posting here. It isn't hard. All you have to do is take the site guidelines to heart and choose to practice them.

Another poor sign is that we've had this kind of conversation before. As I explained to you in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18581673, it's a poor use of our time and energy to play the cross-examination game with commenters who don't adhere to the guidelines and react with endless questions when we point that out. Users who do that nearly always turn out to be a liability for the community.

[antidesitter]

I already addressed that under the very comment you linked to. The fact that you readily accuse me of breaking the rules but then consider discussing the merits of that accusation as "too tiring" and "playing a game of cross-examination" is very concerning.

Also, notice how some of my comments are, without any valid reason, being falsely flagged and silently hidden from view. What do you make of that?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20379602

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20378337

I have no intention of emailing you to "appeal" this retaliatory ban, because you've made it clear that you will ban anyone for questioning the merit of your accusations. You've made a mockery of the HN moderation process.

[dang]

At this point it seems clear that you don't want to use HN as intended, so I've banned this account. If I've guessed wrong (moderation is guesswork, and we do guess wrong), you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll use the site as intended from now on.

Edit: you added your last paragraph after I posted that. Actually, we frequently unban people and are happy to, as long as we believe they'll follow the guidelines in the future. We don't ban people for asking questions—we spend countless hours answering them. What doesn't make sense is to play the infinite concern-troll game, which can easily suck all our resources away from the rest of the site. Since we've had these exchanges before with no effect and you've continued to break the site guidelines, I made that call. I believe that the bulk of the community understands why we have to do this, even if it means guessing wrong sometimes, and supports it as long as we're willing to correct mistakes.