You're lying. As an MBA, you're considering a VC round to fund a corporation which would attempt to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all MBAs against people slandering MBAs. Getting an MBA is like gaining vampirism - you need to drain human blood just to stay alive.
I was responding to a comment that was humorously self-deprecating, and I thought my response's satiric tone was clear.
I'm sorry if you or anyone else perceived it as a personal attack.
Also, it's a personal attack to satirically compare someone to a vampire, but it's okay to compare someone to a lamprey? Is there some list of blood-sucking creatures I can refer to, which indicates which ones you will consider a personal attack, and which ones you will not? Mosquitoes? Ticks? Patent trolls? :-)
Sadly, there are enough comments on Hacker News that say such things and mean them that I could not tell that yours was satire. Sorry for misunderstanding.
Is satire allowed? Sure, of course. But fluff humor tends to get downvoted, since it mostly leads to more fluff humor, which takes threads off topic. Fluff humor isn't bad in itself, but it's bad when it obscures high-quality content.
Thank you on all points, and I agree with what you've said.
I kind of wish I had a "parenthetical comment" option. "This is not on topic, but if someone else feels like looking into the parentheticals, they can turn them on."
Then again, isn't that what reddit was invented for? :-)
As someone who deeply appreciates the work 'dang is doing trying to maintain civility on the site and thinks the site is drastically better now that moderation has a public face and improved transparency: maybe you can find a better way to discuss what he's doing than saying "get a grip". Reading horrible, mean-spirited comments day-in and day-out must be the shittiest part of that job. I can't fathom a reason why anyone would want to make the job shittier.
I must protest, because there's a serious point here. Satire aside, it's not ok to say things like "You're lying" on Hacker News. There are civil ways to make any such point. If people break the HN guidelines egregiously, it's not overreacting for a moderator to say so.
The satire thing is a separate issue. To anyone who reads as many toxic HN comments as I do, the satire in that comment was anything but obvious. It's not even close to the worst stuff HN users say to each other.
The implication in your comment and the root comment is that moderators shouldn't make mistakes. That's too high a bar. We make mistakes all the time. That's why I picked this username!
The serious point that lately seems to be frequently missed is that people communicate in different ways. Some use satire, some use brevity, some use example, some use beat-them-into-submission verbosity, but some use counter example, some play at ludicity, some only elocute in jargon, some lay on the sesquipedalian, and some simply quip. The benefit of the doubt or the long pause goes a long way to healthy and interesting conversation.
I didn't (and wouldn't) chastise anyone for satire. I wonder if you perhaps read these comments in the wrong order, or didn't see them all before you posted this?
