I guess we've just found out how we're going to be treated by the new moderators.
eps was obviously trying to be helpful to lacero. If lacero was hell-banned, he wouldn't know it to email you, would he? And for his trouble he gets this mean reply from you.
I try hard not to be mean. If you'd care to suggest how to improve my wording, I'd be happy to. It's possible that my frustration after a year and a half of reading such comments as eps's with no ability to reply to them leaked through.
A better way for eps to help lacero, if that's all he or she wanted to do, would have been to email and ask us to check why lacero's comment was dead. We would have replied with a thank-you note saying what the reason was and that we had restored all the comments in question. But it doesn't feel to me like helping others is the only agenda going on with comments like eps's, which as you may know are something of a cottage industry on HN.
How you're "going to be treated by the new moderators" is with as much fairness and clarity as we can possibly muster, and willingness to correct our mistakes.
"with as much fairness and clarity as we can possibly muster"
When it comes to exercising authority less is more. If you've ever been "forced" to smile at lame jokes from bouncers when going in to a club you probably know what I mean. Your comments reads like passive aggressive lectures rather than "fair and clear" moderation.
I think I know what happened here. This was the first false statement about HN moderation I was able to reply to, after seeing hundreds of them on the site over the last 18 months. It was frustrating not to be able to say anything for so long, so—even though I tried to control it—that pent-up energy came out in my comment.
Re "lectures": I've been erring on the side of responding to things and giving information. None of that is really on-topic for HN, of course, and I don't intend to do it for long.
> A better way for eps to help lacero, if that's all he or she wanted to do, would have been to email...
This is now understood, but you say it in a severe way - as though you think it should have been obvious for eps to know this. You seem to be making an assumption that, by not doing what you prefer, eps was deliberately acting with negative intent.
From an outside point of view, it is very hard to understand how eps should have known what your preference was (even after rechecking the Guidelines and FAQ). As such, it is hard to understand that eps's intent was anything but positive.
This is now understood, but you say it in a severe way - as though you think it should have been obvious for eps to know this
Well, it is what the guidelines say, and what we've been saying on the site for years. But you're right: that doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone, and the benefit of the doubt would have helped a lot. That was my mistake.
Agreed. eps's comment is as much a product of the opaque nature of moderation here as anything else. Unless users get notified of bans - be they temporary or otherwise - how are they expected to know to modify their behaviour.
Yes I understand there needs to be a balance to avoid an arms race with spammers and the like.
eps was obviously trying to be helpful to lacero. If lacero was hell-banned, he wouldn't know it to email you, would he? And for his trouble he gets this mean reply from you.