If I zoom out and look at the whole thread, I can take a more generous view of your criticism and acknowledge that I could have been more direct rather than leading through questions. I still don't think that's sealioning, but I wasn't as clear and patient as I could have been or want to show up here. I am doing my best and trying to get better.
The issue I think is that the HN guidelines have two different sets of criteria for on-topic and off-topic. With a bit more time to reflect, it seems like the people who think this submission is on-topic are only looking at the on-topic criteria set and not really considering the off-topic criteria set.
They also aren't considering the spirit of the guidelines to foster intellectually curious dialog and avoid topics that derail it.
The comment two up from the one you replied to was not my best and does warrant some criticism, and I think that's the one that probably triggered you to make the sealioning accusation, even though I disagree with that particular classification.
> The idea that it does not foster curiosity comes from a very particular place
Spell it out for me please. What exactly are you accusing me of? This entire thread has been hostile to me but keeps beating around the bush. Are you saying that HN mods and I are protecting Grok in a biased way?
> This post is bullseye dead center in bounds for a HN post.
It definitely isn't, as it hits multiple criteria for off-topic as stated clearly in the HN guidelines.
> They also aren't considering the spirit of the guidelines to foster intellectually curious dialog and avoid topics that derail it.
Yes they are. We considered it and came to a different conclusion than you. We believe that this topic does foster intellectually curious dialog and your insistence that we don't is frustrating.
> Not if the topic consistently devolves away from intellectually curious dialog. There are clearly a lot of charged emotions and strong opinions across most of these comments.
IMO, this is the core problem. Charged emotions and strong opinions are not the opposite of intellectually curious dialog. An insistence that conversation play out like an abstract game separated from all feeling is anathema to useful communication, in my opinion. People are not better, smarter, or more interesting by being dispassionate. Especially when the topic is wide scale mass abuse and harassment. Feelings are not bad.
Okay, well my goal here was to communicate a benefit of the doubt most respectful interpretation of the moderators decision, and how it can be justified by the official HN guidelines.
While I could have been a lot more clear from the start, I think I've done my part. You can disagree with me and assume bad faith if you want. That's your choice.
It's revealing that you're repeatedly framing your decision as someone else's. Did you not see the flag button that you yourself pressed? And I'm assuming you did press it, because you so vehemently argue in favor of flagging this submission.
> It's revealing that you're repeatedly framing your decision as someone else's
Yes it's revealing that I was confused about how HN works.
I did flag it, and I don't deny that. I explained in another comment how I thought it was 70/30 off/on topic. However my confusion stems from the fact that I thought moderators made the final decision to flag a submission. I just read about it and now realize that users drive flagging which alerts moderators and then they choose whether to set it as dead. At least now that's how I think it works.
So yes, a lot of my comments didn't make any sense. All of my interpretation of the guidelines I stand by, but my misunderstanding about the flagging mechanism totally skewed a bunch of my comments and I no longer agree with them. If I could, I would edit them.
I feel pretty silly about all of this. Part of the reason I was so adamant about my stance is that I've had comments flagged in the past, which at the time I felt wasn't appropriate (I really thought fell within the guidelines) and I mistakenly thought the moderators had done. So over time I adapted my interpretation of the guidelines, which is what I was representing here.
Now I realize I was being censored by who knows who based on their interpretation of the guidelines, or who knows why, not the people who run this site. Worse, I let it bias how I use the site and now propogated that pattern out on to others.
I really don't know what to think about all this as there is a lot to unpack and reflect on, but I've unflagged this submission.
Thanks again for clarifying how flagging works for me it's made a big difference.
This post is bullseye dead center in bounds for a HN post. The idea that it does not foster curiosity comes from a very particular place.