[desperadovisa]

? How is dang so certain he (has) the correct position on anything, if he can't consider other points of view? How can he understand others actions if he will not listen to their attempts to explain their motivations?

He doesn't do any of that, he just states some basic, "Stop doing <value judgement about user's behavior>." No discussion, no insight gathering, nothing.

He's a garbage moderator. You can literally observe it in his comment history [0]. His most recent comment (at time of writing)[1] exemplifies this perfectly:

> You don't have to agree with anyone's views but this style of argument is deathly to the curious conversation we want here.

No, it is not. This is simply wrong, and "this style" is dismissive and rude. But that's not up for debate, as dang has decreed it so. The only reason he writes anything at all here is to explain why the person is, to him, wrong. Zero attempt whatsoever to understand an alternative perspective.

Awful, terrible moderation skills.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32640951

[Chris2048]

> he just states some basic, "Stop doing <value judgement about user's behavior>."

Very often it's "stop breaking the guideline", or "stop participating in flamewars" - so not much to go on. Often the next comment is "which guideline did I break" or "What do you mean by flamewar/why is this a flamewar?" - which goes unanswered.

Other times, users will participate in blatant trolling, or obvious (non subjective) rule breaking and get far more detail/response.

It feels like dang/mods aren't exactly sure of what the moderation rules should be, so simply don't answer difficult questions..

That said, what is the benchmark for moderation? Reddit? The internet standard is so low, HN is great in comparison.

[tptacek]

Part of the point of having a moderator is to give the community a mechanism to make quick determinations and to keep tendentious meta-debates out of the main threads (meta-stories like this being an obvious exception). If you want to debate the moderators, mail [e-mail].

[Chris2048]

> keep tendentious meta-debates out of the main threads

How is removing "tendentious meta-debates" aka "controversial topics not directly related to the main thread" compatible with "On-topic: Anything .. interesting ... anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" or even "seasoned talking points aren't on topic here"?

(though it does match "Avoid unrelated controversies".. Guess those are never interesting to good hackers?)

> If you want to debate the moderators

I think the issue is they don't want to debate the mods. Or specifically, for the mods to debate them. I feel there's a difference moderating the meta-aspects of a debate (style, relevance etc), and participating in a debate.

[tptacek]

You're basically lawyering the site guidelines against the person who wrote and maintains the site guidelines (not me; I'm just paraphrasing them). That's neither interesting or productive. Dan has explained over and over again, in great detail, why tendentious meta-debates are toxic to the project HN is trying to run. You are, of course, welcome not to participate in that project! But trying to convince me that the project is something other than what Dan says it is seems silly. Not to put too fine a point on it: I don't care what you think the project is, and I deeply care what Dan thinks it is.

[Chris2048]

By "lawyering" you mean pointing out the contradictions? Sure. You say thats not interesting, but clearly I think it is.

If by project you mean whatever dang says it is, then sure it's what dang says it is. If you mean a community forum, no, dang just had an opinion. The fact that you agree with that opinion and so don't care to be convinced otherwise don't change that it's just an opinion.

> Dan has explained over and over again, in great detail

There may have been an explanation, but no discussion - but would you just argue that this wouldn't be interesting or productive? You're satisfied so why would you care about inconsistent modding?

[auggy31]

Nothing about a moderator necessitates quickness, and what may be tendentious to you is not to someone else. In fact, quickness is a negative trait of a moderator, when their decisions are as impactful as limiting speech.

And nobody said anything about debating anyone, I'm wholly uninterested in dang's perspective at this point, he's made his lack of ability in this area perfectly clear.

It's also perfectly clear how little is in his toolbox to enforce his decisions however, so I suppose it's mostly a wash.

[tptacek]

I disagree with basically everything you said here. But, much more importantly: if you're wholly uninterested in Dan's perspective on things, this place is probably not a great hang for you.

[auggy31]

It’s been a fine “hang” for me for 13 years, it’ll be fine for another 13, most likely.

Also I think it's the literal definition of hubris to disagree with, "what may be tendentious to you is not to someone else" but I'm guessing you don't really care about hypocritical shit like that.

[dctoedt]

13 years, you say? That's not what your profile says — did you feel some need to create a new identity?

[tptacek]

I think anything I say to you is going to generate a snarky, dismissive response, and so am opting to keep things simple.

[dctoedt]

> I think anything I say to you is going to generate a snarky, dismissive response, and so am opting to keep things simple

I feel no such compunction, so: This guy seems to be hiding behind a new handle; for what reason(s), we can speculate.

[Chris2048]

The idea that you have to share the same politics or perspectives as the mod is the problem, and promotes walled gardens and groupthink. The exact phenomenon of mods killing anything they disagree with is what killed reddit.

[tptacek]

You do not have to share the same politics, and, moreover, you don't even know what his politics are. How I know that is, I don't even know what his politics are, and I've talked to him a bunch and am a little unhealthily curious about them.

[Chris2048]

I can't speak to what you know, but I can speak to what sometimes reveals itself.

If it's the case that you don't have to share the same politics, then please explain why:

> if you're wholly uninterested in Dan's perspective on things, this place is probably not a great hang for you