I don't know who you are and have no connection with HN other than as an ordinary user, so maybe my unbiased view will be of some interest to you. Your comment convinces me that the HN staff are doing exactly the right thing and that your expectations are unreasonable. If Slashdot had found a way to detect and penalize people who were upvoting fluff, it would be far more useful today. Obviously the HN approach offends you, but they have succeeded in maintaining a quality general discussion forum over time, an accomplishment that seems to have eluded almost any other group that has tried.
>If Slashdot had found a way to detect and penalize people who were upvoting fluff, it would be far more useful today.
I thought their metamoderation system was great. The issue with Slashdot is that you had to be one of the chosen few with mod points that day to contribute to moderation.
I whole-heartedly agree with you. I’ve been restricted on HN for much less. My posts are always respectful and encourage productive dialogue, yet I believe I’m perceived as a troll because I’m direct or maybe aggressive. Again, I’m never disrespectful but I’m willing to directly challenge incorrect thinking, you can check my history for yourself.
The regulation on style instead of substance on this site really make me question their commitment to intellectual / productive conversation.
Sometimes I wonder how long someone like Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, or Theo de Raadt would last on this site. I don’t think very long. A site that would ban the most influential hackers of our day simply for bad etiquette doesn’t really seem like a site for hackers.
There's a principle on HN that I'd like to find a way to convince the community of more fully: if you think you know someone's work better than they do, consider what you might be missing. Do you really imagine that we haven't thought of this? or care about the issue? or might it just possibly be more complex than you make out?
