Well said, about the highest praise I think can be given for HN moderation (or moderation anywhere really) is that, like much of the best IT and security work and such, it's often like air: noticeable mainly through the continued existence of what it supports, or in its rare absences. The evidence of how hard a balance it is to strike even on a project mailing list or IRC channel let alone a bit public site is there in how many communities have collapsed over the years. Yet HN has continued to be, to be I guess
different from the norm in terms of the intellectually stimulating things you can see and fascinating people you can come across, agree or not. It doesn't try to be everything or grow farther but do its thing well and it generally succeeds. The guidelines are human [1]. At this scale that continuing is itself pretty amazing and testament to what has to go on behind the scenes. So thank you to the team for that!
1: Perhaps this one more then anything is maybe my favorite nugget:
>"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
This really does make such a different to repeat to myself. And even if the other person is not in fact acting in good faith, it doesn't hurt to try first and then disengage with reason rather then pure emotion.