The HN system told me that I am "posting too fast" so this will be my last reply for now...

It's all part of the moderation process. Dang frequently mentions the HN guidelines & he justified his position with:

> nearly everyone with strong passions on a political topic feels like HN is biased against, and even is suppressing, their position

In my experience, downvoting & flagging behavior or negative feedback from @dang doing his moderation job can inflame strong passions & instantiating a covert retaliatory cycle. When someone feels that a viewpoint receives this sort of feedback, one is inclined to ask why? Extrapolating my experience/observations to others, I think transparent justification for moderation would provide feedback as to why, leading to less reply comments asking "why was this downvoted?" or "why was this flagged?". It also disincentivizes bad faith moderation activity.

I'm not complaining about downvoting or moderation per se, but expressing ways to make the HN guidelines more clear, create more fruitful discussions, improve feedback loops, & disincentivizing negative moderation/downvoting/flagging activity.

Edit:

> I guess I don't get what you want here. You have unorthodox views, and seem to foster that and take pride in it. That's great! The world totally does need people with unorthodox views! But you must know that those views will not be popular. That is what the word "unorthodox" means. So I don't get it, what do you want? You want rules enforcing a safe space to express unorthodox views without people disliking them? I'm sorry but that's not possible in a social space. You have to write on a blog with no comments or something if that's what you want.

I agree. All views are subject to criticism. The problem is it's too easy to anonymously knee-jerk a downvote as it often has a negative impact on the "intellectual curiousity" (a stated HN guideline) of the participants of the discussion because it adds the notion of punishment. I have learned to not feel a negative emotion toward downvotes & to incorporate the feedback as some sort of ephemeral HN community sentiment. However, it would be even better feedback to both the original author & the person moderating if the justifications were public.

> But I do think people shouldn't downvote just for disagreement with the content. (FWIW, PG and Dang have expressed in the past that they don't agree with me on this, that it's fine to downvote just for disagreement, but I still think it's better not to.) But I think it's fine to downvote for bad faith. And as you've noted, this is totally subjective.

It is. Which is why making the justification public helps in discerning the downvote feedback. I agree with you that knee-jerk downvoting ought to be discouraged in favor of justified downvoting. Overall, it would make a better, more thoughtful user experience & supports "intellectual curiosity".

> So yep, I downvoted your "I don't have to provide examples" comment (but not any of your others), because I thought it demonstrated that you weren't engaging with dang's many examples in good faith, but were just ranting at him about an unfairness in moderation (again: not just voting) that you've just intuited.

I disagree. Please don't confuse verbosity with a rant. I have to be explicit & thorough about my chain of reasoning.

Rather I have gone in-depth into the issues & repeatedly proposed a simple solution to the issues. I don't have a quantifiable study to point to & I don't think it's even practical to make one without funding & a considerable amount of innovation in software. Public justification of downvoting/flagging activity would help with making such a study. I greatly appreciate @dang for providing his reasoning for his moderation activity. It is very helpful & underappreciated. I think public justification of downvoting/flagging would help him in his job & make his job more rewarding to him.