[latexr]

Crucially, those rules were written before the invention of the new astroturfing machine which makes it more trivial than ever. HN had to impose restrictions around new amounts already, such as limitations on Show HN, so clearly something is going on and being recognised as such.

[fenomas]

If you think the guidelines should be changed you can mail dang, but unless they change the civil thing would be to follow them.

[latexr]

I find it worrying that you’re more concerned with the civil thing than the right thing. Placing an undue emphasis on civility is how bad actors control the conversation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkKo1_RP_0c

The comment you’re replying to wasn’t uncivil. It wasn’t rude. It was a lament.

I’m not advocating for this rule to change (I’d appreciate if you didn’t straw man and mischaracterise what I said), but I am saying if a problem happens over and over and people notice it and talk about it, then you should maybe pay attention. The rule for new accounts came about from multiple comments and even submissions asking for it, not private emails. It came about from community conversation and outcry.

[fenomas]

> Placing an undue emphasis on civility is how bad actors control the conversation.

The load-bearing word in that claim is "undue", and it's not justified here. I'm not doing arcane rules-lawyering, I'm just saying people should avoid doing things the site guidelines quite specifically ask them not to do.

> I’m not advocating for this rule to change (I’d appreciate if you didn’t straw man and mischaracterise what I said),

I wasn't suggesting you did, I was suggesting the person I originally replied to might.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

Does that mean I now repeat your parenthetical back to you? ;)

[latexr]

> I'm not doing arcane rules-lawyering, I'm just saying people should avoid doing things the site guidelines quite specifically ask them not to do.

Which I agree with. And I’m just saying the rules aren’t absolute, can’t cover every situation, and could not predict the change of the world around them, thus occasional deviation from them is OK, especially when it serves the larger goal of protecting discourse on a website whose rules were written to protect it.

It’s the spirit of the law VS the letter of the law. Let’s say the rules ask you to not shove people but say nothing about peeing on others. If someone suddenly starts peeing on everyone without consent and refuses to stop, shoving them to get them away becomes an appropriate response despite being technically against the rules.

> I wasn't suggesting you did, I was suggesting the person I originally replied to might. (…) Does that mean I now repeat your parenthetical back to you?

By your own logic, I wasn’t suggesting you did it, I was asking for no one else to do it (also, it’d make no sense anyway, it’s not a straw man to incorrectly say someone is straw manning). It also means the person you originally replied to wasn’t accusing their parent comment, thus making your original comment invalid.