They said, perfectly clearly, that normal moderator or indeed any user action is not the only way for a person to cause this action to happen.

It's not the DaVinci code.

Who’s they? I’m under the impression we’re discussing what I said, and I said

> without the involvement of a “super-mod” or anyone affiliated with YC.

Unrelated, this will be my last comment on this topic: let me observe how absurd the original claim “you are not allowed to criticise Fig here” is, when most of the top level comments in the original discussion were negative, without getting moderated. Does moderation occasionally misfire? Sure. (No comment on whether I think it misfired that time.) Are over-emotional users harmful to the quality of discussions? Yes.

Then are you using some limited definition of hack that only includes breaking someone's password? I was not. Substitute the word perturb for hack if you will.