I think this is a case where if you had followed your own rules to begin with, this whole discussion thread could have been avoided. There was nothing wrong with your observation of possible incivility - I've noticed you're very attuned to it. You were absolutely doing your job by calling it out. However, the way you worded it gave no context for what was wrong (shallow), implied that the poster had not read the site guidelines (snarky), and ignored the small possibility that "cute" was not intended to be condescending (the strongest possible interpretation of what they said). It seems
I don't think it would have compromised your message if you had been both more specific and a little more polite the first time around. Something like "Your use of 'cute' appears condescending and snarky. This is against the site rules, which you can find here <link>." I think people are more receptive to that tone anyway, and if you do happen to be accidentally overzealous, you've allowed enough room for both of you to save face.
I realise that I too should have posted this comment the first time around, and my initial reply to you (a simple quotation of the site rules I believed you to have violated) was also shallow and snarky, in precisely the same way. So, sorry about that. By way of apology, let me express that I am grateful for the excellent work you do, and that I would surely be much ruder in your position.
It not possible to treat every comment with that level of detail. There are far too many, and the quantity/quality tradeoff is brutal. Sometimes we do, but it costs a lot of time and energy and denies resources to whatever else we need to do, such as look at other threads. So we do our best to convey the needful and are happy to reply with clarification when people ask.
The fact that this many in the community are willing to question the moderation, is indicative of a higher level of tolerance within the community for what it deems "civil". Please consider being a little more lenient while moderating.
I mean its not a very good rule, the general definition [snide and sharply critical.] could apply to most comments; but what specifically is you objection with 'cute', seems it could be taken as a compliment.
And fyi- summarizing this persons quote as 'dumb thing' could be construed as snide and sharply critical.
It's not the case that "snark" could apply to most HN comments. Mostly there's a clear distinction between comments that contain that toxin and those that don't. That's why it's a good rule for HN.
"Cute" is a term of affection, but it's an internet snark trope to use positive language in a demeaning way, because it makes a comment nastier when you do that. Another example is "I love how you", which is used about as often to attack someone as to compliment them (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22i%20love%20how%20you%22&sor...).
my instinct tells me arguing this is pointless, because its vague enough that whatever the mods like they can keep and what they don't like can disappear... But just as an example i will break down your last post;
>It's not the case that "snark" could apply to most HN comments.
Breaks the Please don't post shallow dismissals rule.
>That's why it's a good rule for HN.
Breaks the Don't be snarky rule.
>"Cute" is a term of affection, but it's an internet snark trope
The use of "Air quotes" is the first snark trope on google. same rule you broke twice.
Now I'm not calling for you to be banned, just pointing out that you attacked a borderline case and did it with a post that borderline broke the same vague rules.
