I liked the article's info on the background of the moderators.
It was informative if anything.
And made me feel that they are more human than I thought :-).
However, I disagree with these nuance-avoiding characterization of participation and discussion.
Eg, the article makes participants in Boeing crash discussion, seem inhumane and devoid of 'outrage' that the authors of the article were expecting.
On the other hand, the article is not analytical enough (or purposefully avoiding) mentioning the potential causes, that make moderation of a technical forum difficult.
As I had noted somewhere else in my posts, this forum allows a disproportionaly high number of one-sided article submissions.
It is those type of submissions, by often high-karma users
that continue to create selective-outrage, counter-selective-outrage arguments, and overall high stress, low technical information content discussions.
However, I disagree with these nuance-avoiding characterization of participation and discussion.
Eg, the article makes participants in Boeing crash discussion, seem inhumane and devoid of 'outrage' that the authors of the article were expecting.
On the other hand, the article is not analytical enough (or purposefully avoiding) mentioning the potential causes, that make moderation of a technical forum difficult.
As I had noted somewhere else in my posts, this forum allows a disproportionaly high number of one-sided article submissions.
It is those type of submissions, by often high-karma users
(eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=jbegley )
that continue to create selective-outrage, counter-selective-outrage arguments, and overall high stress, low technical information content discussions.
And cause continuous moderation stress.