Hacker News Reader

Comment by fluidcruft | Hacker News Reader

First, ban everyone who votes "Yes" because obvious bots are obvious and then re-issue the poll. So many birds killed with the same stone.

View on HN

Why would you say that? He honored previous polls, including the one to restore the banned journalists.

Not on the first poll.

He quickly realized one side had more options so it was unfair and redid it. On the original poll suspend for 7 days and ban combined had more votes that unban - how should you interpret that? Redoing the poll as yes/no was reasonable.

Assuming that's true, it sounds like he's bad at making polls and should stop doing so. I also don't think its true since he's acted hypocritically on every value he's proclaimed to have(free speech absolutist, lol) so I have no reason to believe this is the time he's acting entirely honestly.

It is true, it's on his public Twitter feed - you can check. Saying he's "bad at polls" because he redid one shortly after realizing a mistake is really reaching for something to complain about.

The "assuming its true" is referring to you stating

>He quickly realized one side had more options so it was unfair and redid it.

Another plausible interpretation of him redoing the poll is that it wasn't the results he wanted. He has lied enough in the past that I do not extend him the benefit of the doubt. I would not be surprised if that poll had been 80% for the 7 day ban he chose, then he would not have redone the poll as it would have fit his narrative

If you have many options that can ordered (say from harsh to lenient), then I would say the proper interpretation is to take the median. The median has the property that it should win against any other option 1-on-1.

Not all of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com