[ohyeshedid]

I don't see anything disrespectful in that comment; it was made entirely in good faith.

That concept becomes tricky in situations like this, because you're assuming bad faith, and then tone policing based off that. My point of view is that you got it wrong this time, but that doesn't really matter, you're the one with the hammer, boss. o7

Fwiw, HN needs an alert/messaging system of some kind to deliver these moderation messages to users. If I don't see you responded in an official capacity before I post enough to push it to second page of my profile, I may never see it, which means it's not serving it's entire purpose. The public signaling part works, but the direct signaling could easily get lost. I know usually you aren't doing this a day later, but in those cases, there's gotta be a better solution.

[dang]

You packed so many swipey phrases into your comment ("nobody knows who the fuck you are", "<some gibberish about google evil here>", "you created this problem for yourself", "the more you respond", "this is some poorly thought out", "you don't understand") that the post came across as something between a harangue and an outright an attack. This is not a good way to communicate respectfully on the internet. (Doubly so in the context of a mass pile-on, which is what this thread became.)

I believe you that you wrote your post in good faith, but intentions aren't enough. All too often, a comment comes out in a way that doesn't at all make its good intent clear, and damaging effects don't become less when the damage is unintentional. Therefore the burden falls on the commenter to disambiguate intent (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...).

(Yes, it's on the list to eventually build a better way of signaling moderation to accounts. I'm sure there is a much better solution.)

[ohyeshedid]

You stuck this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29165602

You posted this, whether by userscript or directly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29167680

and then this subthread, where we're having this conversation after dinging me.

The OP didn't disclose the requirement of a browser extension. The linked site didn't function in two out of three browsers, and prompted extension installs on Chrome. It was also breaking in user tests.

The users responded as they did. When the extension requirement became the core topic, OP rotated between multiple reasons for why, including some rather bad generalizations about google being a $2trn company, users not being smart enough to switch the default search provider, and almost-but-not-quite admitting it's user capture.

They were back in the other thread debating back and forth, and called out about dishonesty in regards to more of their product claims since. They also removed the extension requirement.

Where were you?

You dinged me, a day later, but never said a word to OP about the need to disclose unexpected software installation requirements for a search service? You allowed them to post, in two separate threads, and market their product with dark patterns.

That's how pile-on's happen, Dan. The product didn't work as submitted, as it required an undisclosed software installation on only one browser, and didn't function at all on others.

Did you test the landing page before sticking their promotional comment?

Did you test it at all?

Do you verify any of the submissions?

If so, why didn't you verify this one?

Why are Show submissions allowed to promote their products with dark patterns?

The people that care about this community's fellow members rightly piled on, because you weren't doing anything about it. This is not the first time this situation has happened. That pile-on is the public screaming warnings to those who might be unaware of potential danger.

Good faith says you just missed the context because you're swamped, I get it man.

When you start dictating what other peoples words mean, without context, and trying to redefine their communication styles to fit your preferred format, on top of the perspective I just shared; How do you think that looks?

I think your approach on this, from the initial submission up, is either disingenuous or careless. I think you fired from the hip, based on my comment, and didn't do anything to actually address, or understand, the cause of the issues in this thread, or the other one.

[dang]

I'm sure you have a lot of good points in here but I don't see anything that changes the specific moderation issue that I was posting about, that your comment went against the site guidelines.

A couple points of clarification in case it's useful:

I pinned https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29165602 to the top of the thread because that's standard moderation practice for Show HNs. When people post an introductory blurb about the project they're presenting, we pin it to the top (assuming we see it!) and turn off replies. There are two reasons: one is that the introductory blurb is really a companion piece to the original submission and therefore belongs at the top. The other is that people often reply to that blurb with general feedback about the project, which (most likely unintentionally) is a kind of topjacking, i.e. it privileges their response higher up on the page, relative to other users who post general feedback in the thread at large. By turning off replies to the blurb comment, we're treating the blurb as part of the original submission and putting all user responses on a level playing field. It's a nice solution! Sorry for the long explanation (no time to make it shorter &c).

As for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29167680 — I never post anything by script! I do have a lot of keyboard shortcuts in my mod-client-browser-extension to help speed things up. But all posts are done manually. I don't think it would be in the spirit of HN to do otherwise.

[ohyeshedid]

The first part of your opening sentence is demonstrative of my point, followed by both explanations. You manually touched the thread 3 times, and did nothing to verify or proactively protect the community, but speech you missed the context on is actionable. You've responded to me multiple times, but you still haven't done anything to correct the problem we were all addressing.

..and yeah, I disagree, as I did originally. I think you're being intellectually dishonest here now. So that's three shades.

The analog to 'because I said so' in the world of tools, is a hammer. As I said, it's your hammer, swing it or don't, but spare me the links to your own search results about communication when you aren't actually participating genuinely.

[dang]

It's not clear to me what you would consider more genuine. If you want to be specific, I can try!

[maxerickson]

It would be useful to be able to collapse comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/newcomments

[ohyeshedid]

You aren't communicating in good faith now, Dan. You're speaking through a communication framework, using conversational tactics. Those tools are wonderful when used to better ones own communication: be aware it becomes manipulation when used as a control on other's. This isn't confrontational, this is just direct and purposeful dialect.

Let's run this back, and this is the last time I'm engaging with you on this specific topic.

I said what I said, you responded that I broke the guidelines, and accused me of disrespect. Respect is a currency earned in grave experiences, to me. I understand you don't know that, but as a policy in this world: quickly questioning someones respect can be inflammatory. For clarity: Everything I say to you is with respect, care, and purpose.

I responded that it wasn't disrespectful, and voiced my disagreement.

You responded to that by cherry picking and scare-quoting collections of words, irrespective of the context of the entire comment, and flow of the conversation at the time.

That's against the spirit of HN: you already know this. The framework you're communicating through: seeking clarity, I don't understand, etc; entirely disingenuous when you actually know better. You violated the rules to make a point, while trying to tone police me, and coach me on how to communicate in a style you prefer.

Respectfully: "nobody knows who the fuck you are"

Absolute truth with levity, as a combined response to several posts by the OP repeatedly responding with incredulity that everyone wasn't happy to install an undisclosed extension while they advertised a search engine service on a website. It's an entirely obvious and honest response.

"<some gibberish about google evil here>"

Levity, brevity, and actually a small kindness. [1][2][3][4][5] Those are just the google related comments. To expound: that's childish circular logic, manipulative talking points, immature tribalism: gibberish is not out of bounds here. This isn't a garage project, this is a corporate venture with major backing; the second thread using other's names as social currency. Poor communication style: avoidant, defensive, while being deceptive: what about guidelines? Respect the house.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29168500 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29167981 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29169534 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29168719 [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29166408

"you created this problem for yourself"

Follow the thread, I refuse to engage with you when you're choosing to ignore conversational flow. They created the undisclosed requirement, the requirement was the most mentioned complaint: they created this problem. That is not a slap, it's a valid observation, and an opportunity to adapt early. Which they have, despite some other questionable ongoing issues.

"the more you respond"

Read my last response, and follow the conversation, they reverted to repeating the same meaningless statements.

"this is some poorly thought out"

They marketed a search service hosted on a website, without disclosing the extension requirement: and further we sink into your missing context; it was user capture.

"you don't understand"

His job title is CEO; is it proper form to question a CEO about deployments, or do we live in world where people have domain expertise in specific fields? Again, you fired from the hip without paying attention to context. Your bias, as I pointed out originally, intellectual dishonesty, and not in the spirit of HN.

If I hadn't made it clear, I'm taking the ding either way. It's your house, but at some point you need to ask yourself if your tao of communication became the site guidelines over time.

Then the actual major issue, that you refuse to acknowledge or engage on: predatory marketing and dark patterns in Show submissions, and your inaction in regards to them. This topic is going to come up again, as it predates this thread. This is a community concern.

Best interpretation is just a mistake, fully respective of workload and personal life. That's great, maybe then you and the community can have a conversation about better processes and ways for us to respond and we can build a solution together. Perfect is an enemy of good just as good enough is an enemy of better. Maintain the house respect.

The only alternative is you're complicit, and intellectually honest reasoning: company policy, employment requirements, etc. This is one of those binary things; the shades of grey begin after the fork.

Disambiguate intent: agreed; now, please. You mentioned damage, and here we are. We can disagree about the tree, and let it be, but I'm also talking about the seemingly untended fire in the forest.

Like I said, I respect the house, I respect the mission, I respect you and the work you do. You quote the show guidelines, they broke the show guidelines: you quote the house guidelines, you break the site guidelines; practice what you proselytize. Do as I say, not as I do is near the peak of intellectual dishonesty. Securing the flock is a shepherds first job responsibility.