Would you mind taking a look at this explanation I posted a couple days ago? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25130956 It is my attempt to explain why we don't want users to flame each other here, even when the other person is ignorant or wrong. The reason may be different than you think, in which case perhaps it will have some persuasive power for you. I hope so anyhow.
>But there are many different ways to stick up for the truth
Whoa. Dang, I have to say, I feel a little slighted. I'm neither ignorant, nor wrong, and I'm aghast that you would insinuate that.
I've contributed faithfully to this site for a decade. The other commenter has -15 karma because, as you noticed, his comments are largely childish, combative and unsubstantive. It's embarrassing that you are validating him.
His claim was that Google publishing DKIM keys as described in the article would be "destruction of evidence", but that's provably untrue since there would be neither intent or willfull neglect on anyones part.
Literally (yes, I mean literally) no-one else here on HN, or anywhere on the internet, has legitimately attempted to argue this. It just doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny. "Destruction of evidence" is a very specific legal term with very specific meaning [0][1][2]. He seems to be distorting it in a Guilianni-esque fashion - "It's fraud! ....But no, your honor, not in the legal sense. More like in my own made-up imaginary sense!".
I've been restrained and as courteous as possible (under the circumstances), but even after you tried to squash the thread, and I stopped commenting, he's continued to insult me. You seem to be tolerating it.
I would have appreciated it if you enforced sanctions against obviously bad actors and remained completely neutral. That is what you're known for, but I respectful think you've failed in this case. At any rate, I know you have just about the hardest job on the internet, so I'll go ahead and chalk this up to misunderstanding.
None of those phrases imply that you were ignorant or wrong. They're simply saying that even if the other person is correct in their position, it doesn't justify breaking the site guidelines.
This is a way of pre-empting the objection "But the other person is wrong and I'm right", which otherwise is the most common reaction to getting moderated. Since the moderation issue is about how people treat each other rather than how right or wrong they are, it's helpful to take it off the table in this way. If you think about it, it's a way of raising the bar for behavior on HN and in that respect is a stronger moderation reaction, not a weaker one.
I am careful, when using such phrases, never to actually take a side on the issue of rightness or wrongness. Remember that in every argument, the other person considers that they are the one who is right; moderating like this is a way of temporarily standing beside them from that perspective and pointing out that nevertheless, they should not have broken the rules. (An exception might be if I happen to personally know the truth about the point under dispute. But I know nothing about DKIM; I barely remember what it is.)
But there are many different ways to stick up for the truth, and some have positive side effects and some not—hammering people over the head, for example. The side effects are actually more important.
