throwllll
If someone posted an article about one of the accusers of JA and creating a mob-and-pitchfork threads against them, I would flag it equally the same as this one. If the only purpose of the submission is to attack people (see attack articles on Wikipedia for definition and concept), then its fail the first HN rule for the threads it will create, ie its not civil to have mob-and-pitchfork threads and its not something anyone would say in a face-to-face conversation with the accused or accuser. In a previous article discussion about JA, someone compared him to hitler. Do you think they would be perfectly fine say that in person?
>> any article that only results in mob-and-pitchfork style discussion > "while allowing stories on the same topics you do agree with"
If topic == mob-and-pitchfork; goto flag-article(). How could I have been be more clear in previous comment? All, any, and regardless if I like the person being attacked or not, I do not find such article to be civil and productive for discussion. I don't even find it productive for social change, as all it does is raising the tone and driving out those that social campaigns tries to convince. Left are those that are already convinces that they are right, flaming against each other.
1# All complaints will be investigated
2# All accusation of crimes will be forwarded to the police.
3# All details will be held behind locked doors, including the name/s of the accused and name/s of the accuser.
4# Actions will be taken if policy has been broken, as per a impartial committee that is picked by the community. Actions will also be taken if anyone is found guilty of a crime by the justice system.
I am pretty sure that if that happened, people would watch what they said much more.