man i'm glad there are identifying details about you in your profile so i can avoid working with you. you're moving goal posts because you can't keep track of what's at stake. i'm not going to reiterate because for some reason you're entrenched.
Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html though, and stick to the rules from now on.
there's something so aggravating about how you preside (note i didn't call it moderation) over these forums. what is the point of a voting system if you can unilaterally censor and censure? you know what the pretense to "objective" and "rational" discourse of this forum does? it inspires the kind of arrogance you see here on so many posts - absolutist positions on everything from tech to healthcare to history. the brand of yc and you and the rhetoric of the guidelines and you all function as an aegis.
> what is the point of a voting system if you can unilaterally censor and censure?
HN is a constitutional democracy. I can see why you'd find it annoying if you're assuming otherwise. We can't go by upvotes alone—if comments break the site guidelines, it doesn't matter how upvoted they are.
The voting system alone doesn't regulate itself—it leads to flamewars because indignant and unsubstantive comments frequently get upvoted. That's why there need to be countervailing mechanisms like flagging and moderation.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
>man i'm glad there are identifying details about you in your profile so i can avoid working with you
is an attack. it's an expression of my personal exasperation. there's literally not a single ascription of any qualities to the other person. you can ctrl+f "you" or "your" in this subtree
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22075698
and i in no place ascribe any qualities to anyone. my only other remark was pointing out the other person's belligerence which i still didn't make personal.
so either you can claim that there's something like a "zero tolerance" policy for antagonism or you can retract what you've accused me of.
this is my overarching point and has been for years on hn: it's evil to paint with a broad brush people that are actually antagonistic and those that don't feel they should toe the line in response to those people. your constitutional moderation is this brush.
It's basically the same as saying "I hate you". You hate them so much that you will go to great lengths to never work with them.
Maybe it's true—maybe you really do hate them—but stating as much is absolutely a personal attack IMO.
> it's an expression of my personal exasperation.
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."