I wasn't chiding that commenter for human nature, I was chiding them for breaking HN's rules. If they hadn't broken HN's rules they could have human-natured all they wanted and much as I might have disliked it, I wouldn't have posted a moderation reply.
When I post a reply of the form "I know it's [... understandable/forgiveable ...] but [... you still broke the rules ...]", it's the second bit which is the active moderation ingredient. The first bit is there to express something in common with the other person, in the hope that they won't feel like they're being attacked personally by the second bit.
More importantly, though: consistency is impossible!
Either way, you recognized the linked rule violation as being motivated by human nature. Yet somehow, in that case, you didn’t handwring (with a clever ironic echo) about how you “can’t prune human nature”. Rather, you called out the rule violation and threatened consequences. So clearly you’re capable!
I thought I had a good suggestion for how to save yourself from cleaning up the torrent of self-important reposts. If you don’t like it, you can ignore a nobody like me! It just seems like a lot more heartache on your end to invent an arbitrary reason why it’s a bad idea, and then link to comments where you reject that reason.
When I post a reply of the form "I know it's [... understandable/forgiveable ...] but [... you still broke the rules ...]", it's the second bit which is the active moderation ingredient. The first bit is there to express something in common with the other person, in the hope that they won't feel like they're being attacked personally by the second bit.
More importantly, though: consistency is impossible!