> Why not just make your substantive points without making it be about the person?

Because the point I wanted to include is that it was a person who made this decision. Using someone's name is how you personalize them. She, He, They, are all abstract and dehumanizing the decision. I specifically wanted to avoid abstract language because I didn't want to give the notion that it's just a small commit in a huge company. I thought it was important to highlight the fact that this small commit made by an individual is the commit that is the problem. It's not large corporation who owns the repo that wrote this code. It was a person with a name. Just like the reader is a person with a name.

> I'm not asking you to stop commenting on anything controversial! This was a more specific point than that. However, I do think some calibration to local conventions would be helpful (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). For example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29214019 is another flamewar comment of the kind that we're trying to avoid here. If you find yourself beginning with "So you lied when you said...", that's a bad sign!

The reason I suggested this was because I don't think the local conventions are a reasonable request. Not because I disagree with them generally, but because they're not applied universally. I can even use that comment thread as an example. The person I was arguing with wasn't trying to speak fairly. More then a few time the commenter would ignore parts, and only respond to others. I'm fulling willing to admit they don't have any real responsibility to respond in full to everything, and they clearly should be allowed to select what they want to reply to, or not. (Apart from the common courtesy.) But they clearly said something they didn't really mean. I lack another explanation than arguing in bad faith. Mea culpa, I used 'lie' a word that does appear to imply intent to deceive. But arguing without care, willfully making statements you don't really mean, and then ignoring responses requesting consensus is arguing in bad faith. Even if it's unintentional. To be clear, I don't anything he did could be reasonably considered in defiance of the guidelines. But IMO it's close; close enough to be inconsiderate, but not close enough to warrant a comment from an admin. Close enough to disrespectful that's it's provocative, but far enough to appear banal.

I like the rules hackernews encourages, but not the end result. Conversations aren't elevated by absence of emotion. Only by well thought out, rational conversations by speakers who are also willing to listen. Especially to thoughts or ideas they find uncomfortable. Again, mea culpa. I agree with you for some interpretations, I easily stepped onto, or over the line. But lacking the eloquence required to have real conversations without emotion, speaking about people who make decisions that make the world infinitesimally worse, or argue unfairly, I often can only author responses that appear brash. Which unfortunately does appear to break from local conventions. So if that is harmful, I shouldn't comment. :(

Edit: I looked into how to delete my account or comments, but that's not something hn want's to permit. Are you able to redact my original post? I don't think it's right to leave something that's objectionable.