3 ms·

That's both a slippery slope and a strawman argument. No one argued we should allow all links to any legislative work no matter its significance. Not to mention

That's both a slippery slope and a strawman argument. No one argued we should allow all links to any legislative work no matter its significance. Not to mention that HN does allow repetition as long as there is a fair period of silence between similar submissions. The criteria has always been that of relevance, impact, and depth. So what mods could demand is a submission statement with a quote/source describing the momentum or the viability of the discussed regulation . In the EU when it's at the public consultation or commission adoption stage it's already serious enough, in the US you want to some evidence the bill won't just die in the next chamber.

pvg 4y ago
That's both a slippery slope and a strawman argument That’s just the messageboard version of ‘ur mom’. Ur mom is a slippery slope and a strawman!
- class4behavior 4y ago
  First, that is nonsense. Just because there are people accusing others of fallacious arguments for no good reason doesn't mean you can always just disregard the claim. Second, you're the one not addressing my actual points but I'm supposed to be the one who's dismissive and immature? You can just search for proposed bill, draft eu, and such. There's plenty evidence that the argument such submissions are offtopic is false. You then insinuate that this would lead to a load of overly similar submissions and conversations by comparing legislation to software releases. How's that not a slippery slope? Where will all those tech bills suddenly come from? Besides, I'm not arguing for more of the same but simply against the notion that early stage submissions are not appropriate for HN. This would not bring any major changes to the queue.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    This thread is getting silly. He's just trying to help explain some of the rationale behind the rule. But the rule itself is real; you can't argue it out of existence. You should mail hn@ycombinator.com if you've got concerns. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=proposed%20bills%20author%3Adang&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

pvg 4y ago

That's both a slippery slope and a strawman argument That’s just the messageboard version of ‘ur mom’. Ur mom is a slippery slope and a strawman!

class4behavior 4y ago
First, that is nonsense. Just because there are people accusing others of fallacious arguments for no good reason doesn't mean you can always just disregard the claim. Second, you're the one not addressing my actual points but I'm supposed to be the one who's dismissive and immature? You can just search for proposed bill, draft eu, and such. There's plenty evidence that the argument such submissions are offtopic is false. You then insinuate that this would lead to a load of overly similar submissions and conversations by comparing legislation to software releases. How's that not a slippery slope? Where will all those tech bills suddenly come from? Besides, I'm not arguing for more of the same but simply against the notion that early stage submissions are not appropriate for HN. This would not bring any major changes to the queue.
- tptacek 4y ago
  This thread is getting silly. He's just trying to help explain some of the rationale behind the rule. But the rule itself is real; you can't argue it out of existence. You should mail hn@ycombinator.com if you've got concerns. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=proposed%20bills%20author%3Adang&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...