What if you were banned from school and still had to pay them without knowing that you got banned. Even worse, what if all of your schoolmates would ontop of that start ignoring you and nothing you do could change it? Wouldn't that be an egoistic act?
You're not paying to use HN, so the analogy is a non-sequitur.
You're a guest in pg's house; hellbanning is a generous form of dealing with the unruly by at least letting them visit and talk to those who want to hear the unruly, without either letting the unruly annoy all the guests or throwing some out entirely.
>> hellbanning is a generous form of dealing with the unruly by at least letting them visit and talk to those who want to hear the unruly, without either letting the unruly annoy all the guests or throwing some out entirely
That argument is convincing, but I still believe that it's not fair treatment to not letting them at least know about their ban. I didn't know that the unruly can still talk to others. That's changing things completely!
Somehow can't reply under your post. By egoistic I mean that someone can continue profiting from the time you take to write posts or submit links without letting you participate with the HN users.
The [reply] button takes longer to show as threads get deeper. This is because deeply nested threads tend to be flame-bait and argument, and slowing down posting is meant to help with that.
Usually clicking the [link] button gives you a text box.
I would have a problem with that practice, but my problem would not be that it is egoist... Are you using egoist as a drop in replacement for "bad"? What do you mean by egoist?
