[mandmandam]

Getting a little passive aggressive there dang.

I hope people do read that, and the context. There's nothing banworthy there, at least from me. Not unless you're a big fan of tptacek running roughshod over people, as you yourself admit he often does.

You also claimed to have "asked me to stop" - which you didn't.

And when I asked you where you said that you didn't reply.

And when I emailed to ask nicely to be unbanned, as you requested, you ignored it.

So... Yeah.

[dang]

> There's nothing banworthy there, at least from me

You were breaking the site guidelines repeatedly in that thread.

> And when I asked you where you said that you didn't reply

Sorry — usually I do reply — I must not have seen https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34856255. FWIW in retrospect, here are some places where we asked you to stop (I don't remember why I used the word 'just' though, since these are older):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30293928 (Feb 2022)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28699914 (Sept 2021)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28650525 (Sept 2021)

> when I emailed to ask nicely to be unbanned, as you requested, you ignored it

I can't find any email that references your username. When did you send it?

[mandmandam]

What you're calling "breaking site guidelines", I call "politely standing up to an active bully". A bully who you acknowledged was well over the line. You said nothing to tptacek about it, while banning me for putting a toe over the "guideline".

You said "we just asked you to stop" in reference to a request 12 months previous, yes. There was no other request. I think 3 exceedingly minor incidents over 30 months is pretty bad to ban someone over - and I think it's weird that you'd go so far as to dig that shit up as if it's relevant here, or improves your case.

Sure look, we all make mistakes. Since you apparently though that you'd asked me to stop recently, and in fact you hadn't, feel free to unban me.

I sent the email that day. No worries about not finding it - you're only human. Again, feel free to stop rate limiting my comments, and limiting them to those with showdead on.

I'll continue to have a spine whatever you decide, and I'll call out bullies, politely, with this account or through a VPN - your call.

[dang]

I didn't acknowledge that, and it was you who were well over the line. Your comments in the thread were obviously flamewar. That's not allowed here, regardless of how right you are or feel.

People often feel like they're saying "true and important things politely" when in fact they're egregiously flaming. Then when we ban them for flaming, they feel like they got banned for saying true and important things. I don't know the way out of that perception; all I can tell you is that you broke the rules badly and that I'm pretty sure the bulk of this community would agree.

I'd be happy to unban you, but I need a reason to believe that you won't do that again.

Btw there's no email in the HN inbox that references your username and while I found one or two emails from that day that reference being banned, I replied to all of them and none were from you. It's possible your email went to spam, though we look through the spam bin pretty carefully and rescue most emails like that.

[mandmandam]

Honestly dang, you're like the teacher in class who punishes the kid that stands up to the bully. I've never understood that mindset.

This is your domain, and your rules go. If you say I was flame warring, then I was flame warring. But I don't think "the majority of this site would agree", and I think it's weird you think that.

If you can point out what exactly was so egregious - something which tptacek didn't do worse in the same thread - I'll endeavour to make sure it never happens again, you have my word.

[submariner11]

You'll never win this fight. For _years_ people have complained about tptacek's bullying, but he's one of the HN elite, so he'll never be punished. It's a racket.

[dang]

I believe if I asked him to change, he would, but I don't see the bullying. He's a cogent, forceful arguer for sure, but that's a good thing, no? Maybe he oversteps the guidelines a little sometimes—in fact he must, because it's impossible not to from time to time—but AFAICT it's neither frequent nor egregious. If everyone respected the site guidelines as well as he does, regardless of whatever views they're arguing for, HN would be a vastly better place.

Still, we don't come close to seeing everything and I understand the sensitivities people feel around elitism (real or perceived). If you or anyone see a post by any user that you think I would normally give a moderation scolding to, you're welcome to bring it to our attention at [e-mail]. I'll normally either post a moderation reply and thank you for bringing it to our attention; or, if not, at least let you know that I don't think it broke the guidelines badly enough to do so. And I can promise you that it's our intention to treat everyone equally.

(p.s. there are actually difficult cases of users who break the site guidelines a lot and also post a lot of valuable comments, but tptacek is nowhere near being one of those).

[dang]

Ok, I'll take your request at face value. Here's how I read the last comment you posted before we banned you (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34852986):

> Kindly take your gaslighting and passive aggression somewhere else

That's aggressive name-calling and flamebait.

> I'm allowed to "yell" and write how I like. I haven't taken any personal shots at anyone - unlike yourself.

That's flamewar fodder which adds no information.

> Even if shrill is "gendered" (The Google says it "hints" at gendered language, btw), *so fucking what*.

"So fucking what" is gratuitous, aggressive flamebait.

> The implication in GPs comment is that this justifies Newspeak-ification... It doesn't.

That's an on-topic statement! but a shallow one. This part could have been the kernel of a good comment if you had expanded on your argument instead of just saying "It doesn't."

> And neither does referencing less "agreeable" authors, such as Joseph Conrad.

That's fine, but again would have been much better with more information.

> I mean, wow dude. Talk about the worst possible takes.

That's more name-calling and flamebait.

I don't know how to read that comment except as exactly the sort of flamewar that we don't want on HN. And you broke the site guidelines repeatedly in other comments in that same thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34854019

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34852816

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34852697

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34852642

I re-read tptacek's comments in the same thread and your comments were far, far more aggressive and flamewarrish than his. It's not close. I realize it doesn't feel this way because it always feels like the other person started it and did worse. But this is an illusion we all suffer from when we get into those sorts of conflicts. (The solution is to cultivate the habit of responding less in kind, not more; if one does that enough, it can partially correct for that bias.)

All that said, I could probably have warned you rather than banned you at that point. I don't understand why I wrote "we just asked you to stop" - assuming you weren't using multiple accounts to post, it's possible I simply mistook you for someone else that I had recently scolded, and if so, that could have tipped me in the direction of banning you.

If you want to commit to editing out flamebait and name-calling from your posts and not being aggressive in HN comments in the future, I'd be happy to unban you. Please make sure you're up on the guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html because those set the parameters of how we interpret these things.

[mandmandam]

You know, I think I'm starting to get why teachers do that. Thanks for taking the time to explain your thought process.

I will commit to avoiding "flamebait" and name-calling in posts, and being, at worst, genially aggressive in HN comments.