I do think it can be improved by making it more of a probation system that explains what's happening and how long the probation period is, presumably with some sort of exponential backoff so that over time probation converges to a permanent penalty. This is on the list to implement.
If it's downvotes over a time period I don't see how that's a reliable method to determine whether someone should be on "probation".
If it's manual then I dispute the decision behind it as I'm constantly limited and I'm very cordial while albeit contrarian.
I'm not saying there should be no moderation, just that whatever is triggering the shadow muting is flawed.
If you want post limits, enable them for everyone.
> If you want post limits, enable them for everyone.
That would be inconsistent with optimizing for curiosity [1]. There are heaps of users from whom the more comments HN is lucky to receive, the better.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
This rate limiting seems to happen to me quite a bit, and when I've E-mailed, it's "Hmm, you look like you're posting fine now. We'll remove the limit." Leaving me scratching my head, searching in vain through my comment history for anything that might have plausibly triggered the action.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be taking away from that.
We do it because it's one of the few tools we have to try to prevent this place from destroying itself. Most of the other tools (such as replying to comments) take enormous much time and energy. It's necessary to have at least a few measures that can be done in software.
I wish that everyone complaining about this could realize the irony of the complaint: one of the reasons why the thing valuable enough to be worth complaining about exists in the first place is measures like rate limiting. But I know that's too much to ask.
I think 4chan has done moderation better than anyone to date.
This statement may or may not be totally factually accurate.
Heh, look! I didn't break any of the eggshells!
