I mean, you kind of asked for a response from mods by asking me to speak to the guidelines, and I wasn't able to do so to your satisfaction, so I emailed the mods. Is that summoning someone? It just seemed expedient. I've been on HN a decently long time, and others even more so. I too share a curiosity about the site, its norms and guidelines, and how they shift and change. I've had discussions with mods on HN and over email about similar issues. I am glad you have ideas and can communicate them passionately. We likely have a lot of overlapping concerns regarding this site and our discussion of it. That said, I don't think it's fair to call what I originally said an accusation per se, because I don't think it's necessarily up for debate what I was reminded of, as I am an authority on my own state of mind.
I appreciate the discussion. Maybe try to read the thread again from my point of view and see how I might feel that you were dismissive and uncharitable in your reading of my comments, which prompted me to tap the sealion sign. I wasn't saying you were affirmatively and definitively doing that. I was saying that the conversation was degrading to my reading. You yourself said you weren't finding it very entertaining, which to me seemed sarcastic and flippant, and it didn't inspire confidence that you would proceed in good faith, and that perception of you, which you helped me form, reminded me of the sealion in the comic which I referenced.
Do you see how I could perceive your comments in the other thread as being in bad faith?
If users and mods acknowledge your point as being worth discussing, yet disagree with your desired course of action, where would you like this conversation to go from here? Can we get there from here?
> I mean, you kind of asked for a response from mods by asking me to speak to the guidelines
I was requesting that you literally quote the relevant passage(s) from the guidelines or from other sources, which is simply copy and paste, not speaking for anyone.
You claimed that something was in the guidelines, but I read the guidelines and didn't find the thing you claimed, so direct quotes would seem to be the natural next step, not emailing the moderators, which feels like overkill.
> I don't think it's fair to call what I originally said an accusation per se, because I don't think it's necessarily up for debate what I was reminded of, as I am an authority on my own state of mind.
You can be reminded of anything you like, in your own mind. When you publish it, as a reply to me, it becomes for all practical purposes an accusation. I have thoughts about various people, including you, that I refrain from publishing.
> You yourself said you weren't finding it very entertaining, which to me seemed sarcastic and flippant
No, I was quite honest and sincere, about that and about the purpose of HN itself. The HN guidelines say that on-topic is "Anything that good hackers would find interesting", "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." That's more or less entertainment. Highbrow, perhaps, but still entertainment.
> If users and mods acknowledge your point as being worth discussing, yet disagree with your desired course of action, where would you like this conversation to go from here?
I understand disagreement, which is fine. I also understand that summaries are subjective (which I also think is fine). What I did not understand was your comments about "bad actors", "charlatans", and "sophists". This is a threat model that does not seem very applicable or realistic in the context.
I mean, you kind of asked for a response from mods by asking me to speak to the guidelines, and I wasn't able to do so to your satisfaction, so I emailed the mods. Is that summoning someone? It just seemed expedient. I've been on HN a decently long time, and others even more so. I too share a curiosity about the site, its norms and guidelines, and how they shift and change. I've had discussions with mods on HN and over email about similar issues. I am glad you have ideas and can communicate them passionately. We likely have a lot of overlapping concerns regarding this site and our discussion of it. That said, I don't think it's fair to call what I originally said an accusation per se, because I don't think it's necessarily up for debate what I was reminded of, as I am an authority on my own state of mind.
I appreciate the discussion. Maybe try to read the thread again from my point of view and see how I might feel that you were dismissive and uncharitable in your reading of my comments, which prompted me to tap the sealion sign. I wasn't saying you were affirmatively and definitively doing that. I was saying that the conversation was degrading to my reading. You yourself said you weren't finding it very entertaining, which to me seemed sarcastic and flippant, and it didn't inspire confidence that you would proceed in good faith, and that perception of you, which you helped me form, reminded me of the sealion in the comic which I referenced.
Do you see how I could perceive your comments in the other thread as being in bad faith?
If users and mods acknowledge your point as being worth discussing, yet disagree with your desired course of action, where would you like this conversation to go from here? Can we get there from here?