Unlike OP, I get the impression you’re referring to the good faith clause. I think they did that admirably, balancing a stated assumption that the intent was we

Unlike OP, I get the impression you’re referring to the good faith clause. I think they did that admirably, balancing a stated assumption that the intent was well meaning and knowledgeable jest with a friendly and informative rebuttal clearly intended to be helpful if their assumption was flawed. But you could be referencing any number of other things in the guidelines. It would be incredibly helpful if people on HN who engage in community moderation actually explain their reasoning. Here I’ll help: > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. If you’re bothered enough by someone’s comments to link the guidelines, sharing a thought about which part of them is pertinent would be more thoughtful and would facilitate a healthier discussion. > Please don't post shallow dismissals […] A good critical comment teaches us something. This is one I’m working on too. If it’s worth challenging something, it’s probably worth challenging it with some proverbial meat. It might seem obviously wrong to you, or to me, but it doesn’t always seem that obvious to everyone else. I’m certain you meant well with this, but I also think OP would benefit from clarification. I know I would too, and I expect the discussion would benefit as well.