>He also added ~"there's 2 sides of a story". I don't see why Dang wouldn't be allowed to add a comment regarding this topic.

The fact that it's the top post is the most questionable thing here, it seems pinned to the top.

The statement is seemingly fair and balanced but make no mistake it's not. A common technique among corporations and public relations experts is to try to seemingly be fair about things that are obviously wrong. A good example of this is educational creationism in the US. Many schools want to teach a fair and balanced view of biology by teaching both evolution and creationism. Like dang himself said, there are two sides to every story after all.

I never said Dang should be banned from commenting. It is a dictatorship after all. His opinion and comment and the fact that it's the top comment in this thread makes the whole thing sketchy. And that is all I am remarking on.

If I were him and my intentions were to be neutral I woulda just left the topic completely alone.

>Good moderation is too much undervalued from my POV. You only notice it when it's gone.

This is off topic. I'm not talking about moderation here as something to get rid of. My topic is the conflict of interest that has to do with this thread and dangs comment on it. That's it.

>If I'm free to give my opinion, you seem to frustrated because people don't agree with you. I understand, it's normal and human behavior. You are not above it.

You are, and I appreciate your opinion. I never said I was above it. But here you are again, after telling me to chill you tell me that I seem frustrated. Again it's your bias talking and inserting false emotions into places where none exists. I am simply explaining why I disagree with you.

>As an example your most recent comment, first line:
>> Any post that challenges dang will likely get voted down.
>It's snarky against a highly respected member that is part of the team that makes this forum HN.

It's not snarky dude. It's true. If I call someone who murdered 10 people a killer am I being snarky? No. I'm remarking on a fact. Now I admit I'm criticizing him but open and polite criticism is part of the spirit of HN.

Anyway this subthread has already degraded to uninteresting talk that's against the spirit of HN. I would say normally dang would probably kill this subthread if he saw it, but he may not in effort to appear fair and balanced. That's a good thing. But that doesn't mean you should just ignore the conflict of interest at play here. Either way, it's best not to continue this debate, I've made my point and you evidently disagree but neither of us can definitively prove whether censorship is happening or if it isn't so let's end it here.

>Full of human behavior ( as you like to mention), because it doesn't fit your endgoal. Downplaying that the post isn't deleted, while admitting that the moderation was fair.

And what is my endgoal? I have repeatedly said he could not be censoring things and that he also could Why didn't you bring those up? Are you CHERRYPICKING??? No you're not, you're simply not clear about what I am saying so I am clarifying the facts to you.

My end goal here is to remark that the actions dang took here are a conflict of interest and that makes his post highly sus. Does it mean dang doesn't do good things? No. Does it mean dang has never done no evil? No. It means that what he is doing here for this specific post is sketchy. THAT is my end goal.

>Useless content :)

See. This is rude and the smiley face is truly snark. This is actually against the rules of HN. A deliberate violation. I wonder how dang would react to this kind that kind of remark. Truly a test of his ability to stay centered and unbiased. Most likely he won't do anything given the context.