I think we can differentiate between rules that are in place to uphold a certain standard, and those that stop change from happening at all. The latter is guar

I think we can differentiate between rules that are in place to uphold a certain standard, and those that stop change from happening at all. The latter is guarantee for obsolence. The former a way to allow change, but not have that change affect the core of the community. E.g. at HN, deep conversations are core. So it makes sense to protect that with rules on friendlyness, effort and topics. But it's always a thin line and a spectrum. Something many (software) communities or community-leaders have a hard time with. So they go for absolutism. And often don't allow any change. The worst reason for (not) doing something is "we've always done it this way". Yet in many (software and FLOSS) communities that is exactly what is upheld. Keeping out new influences but also keeping out fresh members, ideas and users.