|
|
|
|
|
|
by ceejayoz
4279 days ago
|
|
|
> There isn't a voting system so people can democratically decide what content is good or bad. I'm confused. Comments have up/down voting, and posts have up voting and flagging. > In a democratic system like Reddit, there might be objections to changing the titles or shadowbanning trolls (reddit does shadowban, but mods can't shadowban people for disturbing the quality of a subreddit). On Hacker News, these features are welcomed because they raise the quality of discourse. I've seen both people posting "you're hellbanned and it doesn't look warranted" and productive, moderator-accepted complaints about changing titles. |
|
|
The voting system exists so that the community can raise productive comments, and lower unproductive comments. It's impossible for Paul Graham himself to come to every thread and say which comments are good and bad. We have to help how we can.
>I've seen both people posting "you're hellbanned and it doesn't look warranted" and productive, moderator-accepted complaints about changing titles.
The Y Combinator is reasonable, and human. It has a set of rules it attempts to operate by, but human agents occasionally violate their own rules. Ultimately, all decision-making authority rests with them, not the community.
But the fact they exist is difference enough to demonstrate my point.