@Dang: Please explain why HN tolerates/allows flagging without having an explanation per flag that’s traceable to guidelines system has logged the related user as having been notified of prior?<p>As is, to me, I understand balance of HN, having too many rules, injecting rules/systems that upset the feel of HN, but I feel like users abusing flags is toxic to the spirit of HN and if any user is found to be abusing flags they should be ban from being allowed to use flags and disputing flags should be possible; if a user repeatedly falsely disputes flags, they should be ban.
<p><pre><code> >I feel like users abusing flags is toxic to the spirit of HN...
</code></pre>
But it's always going to happen. Same with the upvotes/downvotes. People will flag a post or downvote a comment they don't like, whether or not it happens to be true, relevant or accurate.<p>The secret is not to let it bother you. At the end of the day your karma ratings here are just "internet points" and flagging or downvoting are just people proclaiming that <i>"Someone is wrong on the internet!"</i>. It really is no different to Twitter or Reddit, in that regard. We just like to delude ourselves we're a cut above those kind of sites.
My two cents worth.<p>The problem is this, is the person who only has low karma any less skilled in spotting a topic that isn't exactly fit for posting or discussing further, than one who has a lot more karma? Do those who have over 500 karma points, any better at remaining objective when they consider down voting a post?<p>Introduce <i>reasons</i> and I expect the outcome won't be much different to forums where some people over use a report feature and just select what passes ... generally the acting mods soon realise there's a pattern but it takes time to deal with the BS - actually it's a real time cost.<p>Presently as far as I see, the system at the moment discourages a user walking into hot topics where the ideologues aren't going to see reason anyhow, so there's little point to pile into the conversation. However if something inappropriate is submitted, a wider field of people can flag it. Sure some people might abuse it, but I would guess there's a list of flagged and dead submissions that staff can look over and review.<p>Actually for the last week I've been following flagged and dead posts - nothing firm but many are nearly the same or on about the same subject that was posted a couple days before ... if not a few hours before, many are simply advertising their own site, and goodness knows why idiots keep posting here about gummy bears. Today was the first I vouched for a dead post, since it was the shiny flag why not vetting who advertises on a website is very bad ... or hard core porn ads will kill a safe for work or kids will be using it website / service.
And this submission is FLAGGED — how specifically is it a violation on HN’s guidelines?<p>This is toxic - and claim that some how Dang is able to moderate the toxicity is telling — as is the claim the HN is a community based on spirit of curiosity and open reasoning.<p>* Please feel free to click the timestamp for the submission then click “vouch” if you feel this submission should NOT be flagged; if it’s unclear how to do so, happy to try to make how more clear.
<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto</a><p>The only purpose of flagging is always a heckler’s veto. The problem is whether such deliberate censorship occurs to satisfy disagreement or community standards. At this time there is no way to know.