[Chris2048]

> keep tendentious meta-debates out of the main threads

How is removing "tendentious meta-debates" aka "controversial topics not directly related to the main thread" compatible with "On-topic: Anything .. interesting ... anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" or even "seasoned talking points aren't on topic here"?

(though it does match "Avoid unrelated controversies".. Guess those are never interesting to good hackers?)

> If you want to debate the moderators

I think the issue is they don't want to debate the mods. Or specifically, for the mods to debate them. I feel there's a difference moderating the meta-aspects of a debate (style, relevance etc), and participating in a debate.

[tptacek]

You're basically lawyering the site guidelines against the person who wrote and maintains the site guidelines (not me; I'm just paraphrasing them). That's neither interesting or productive. Dan has explained over and over again, in great detail, why tendentious meta-debates are toxic to the project HN is trying to run. You are, of course, welcome not to participate in that project! But trying to convince me that the project is something other than what Dan says it is seems silly. Not to put too fine a point on it: I don't care what you think the project is, and I deeply care what Dan thinks it is.

[Chris2048]

By "lawyering" you mean pointing out the contradictions? Sure. You say thats not interesting, but clearly I think it is.

If by project you mean whatever dang says it is, then sure it's what dang says it is. If you mean a community forum, no, dang just had an opinion. The fact that you agree with that opinion and so don't care to be convinced otherwise don't change that it's just an opinion.

> Dan has explained over and over again, in great detail

There may have been an explanation, but no discussion - but would you just argue that this wouldn't be interesting or productive? You're satisfied so why would you care about inconsistent modding?