By linking that thread you're giving it more attention which is counterproductive.

Yes, because supressing and self-censoring certain subjects works so well to solve them. /s

You just had to find a way to pull the gender issue into a thread that has nothing to do with it right?

Completely off topic, sorry.

I see. And of course I take that wikipedia link to sarcasm for sarcasm.

Anyway, the heavy discussion around this post seems to disprove your point making your sarcasm harder to spot.

We have a winner here. If you don't like what people discuss here, go to Financial News.

Why thank you! If you don't like what I discuss here, go to another discussion.

Nope.

> OK. Settle down now, princess.

This breaks the HN guidelines badly. We ban accounts that comment like this, so please don't do it again.

Linking to a troll thread, taking this one wildly off-topic, and pompously posturing about how you're better than the rest of HN are bad too.

Let me get this straight: you call the article I've linked to a troll thread yourself, but me complaining about this troll article reaching front page is "pompously posturing that I'm better than the rest of HN"? Is this what you are saying?

It's not that you're complaining about the article reaching front page. It's the insulting way you're doing it. You were out of line in the line that deng quoted (per HN guidelines).

Second: deng is a (the?) moderator here. He's not taking sides in a dispute; he's trying to keep things within the HN guidelines. He can say that the article is a troll, and say that you were out of line in the way you complained, because both the article and you were out of line.

Yes, the "princess"-comment was harsh and I see how it violates the guidelines. I agree with that.

But as I understood dang, additionally to the warning he/she made a judgement regarding my general tone. And I don't understand why it's "pompous" of me to make fun of ridiculous content that dang him- or herself concedes is bad.

It doesn't add any positive value to the conversation.

What I called pompous posturing is going on sarcastically about HN ("ridiculous preferences of HN readership", "HN has more important things to do"), which is a supercilious way of dissing a community you're participating in. People frequently do this as a rhetorical device to implicitly put others down, which means it's uncivil, which means it shouldn't be on HN.

But wasn't the troll article upvoted by the majority of HN users to get to the front page? Isn't that worthy of ridicule?

I could, of course, press the "Flag" link and in doing so achieve absolutely nothing: I'm in the minority here.

I'm honestly at a loss here. I did expect HN to moderate the discussions, but I didn't expect such strict policing of my behaviour.

Yeah, dang is really strict. He or she, I don't know what it is, maybe transgender, moderates with pride. Protect the "boys club" and all.