I've heard it before Dang. Those rules are written (not necessarily with intent, you must also grapple with emergence) such that it is ALWAYS possible for a way to be found that the rules "have been violated", according to a subjective(!) judgment.

When we write software, or do anything, as Hackers we have to HANDLE subjectivity, and complexity. This is a HACKER website, hard problems are what people here (including your boss) PROCLAIM that we SHOULD handle.

I appreciate that moderating this website is not easy, in no small part because of people like me, but I CHALLENGE you, or Paul (I encourage you to cc him on this, I will take on all challengers) - anyone who "wins" based on an AMBIGUOUS (did you notice you didn't note WHICH (objectively subjective) rule I allegedly violated? I did!) appeal to "the rules" is imho violating the very spirit of NUMEROUS of paulg's excellent blog posts.

What's the deal Dang? Can you force your mind out of ~standard moderation mode? Can you consider the possibility that you are not an Omniscient Oracle, that perhaps someone that holds some different beliefs than you might maybe have a valid point, that maybe you have a MASSIVE problem on your plate that maybe cannot be executed with perfection? When you and I disagree, is it possible that perhaps your subjective disagreement on the subjective matter (which this is - do you disagree?) is not necessarily the most correct answer?

What's you and paulg's goal here? Money? Winning petty arguments? Something else?

I enjoy playing the Climate Change card. Is it not true that it is asserted to be a ~"big deal" here on HN? Well, how well are you Big Brains doing on that front? I've read LOTS of conversations on that topic here on HN, and I see little novelty, and LOTS of rehashed mainstream (non)thinking. Is this the legacy you and paulg want to leave? "Think outside the box"...but don't you dare violate the (local, man-made) Overton Window.

A challenge: set Paul Graham on me: Me vs Him. Off the record. I predict if the "The Rules" advantage is taken away, I will win every argument (because I have at least one trick up my sleeve), in Fact if not in appearance (I have more than one way to handle short term "losses" due to ~loaded dice).

Alternatively, you can always fall back to the winning by fiat approach: I make the rules, thus I win. But what if that Cultural Norm (it is a norm, do you even know this?) is what is causing the problem?

Essentially, I am laying a challenge not just at your feet, but also at Paul Graham's feet: come out from behind your rules, and argue like you are actually serious, not just (silicon valley, Western, 2023, etc) culturally "serious".

Also: feel free to ban me, but if that's your choice I recommend you also delete this thread, as there is a "fairly excellent" chance that I am going to use it as a ~"case in point" once I get "some things" off the ground. I propose that am not your average forum poster - I have a non-trivial architecture in mind that has been in the works for years to address the games played on social media in this era of humanity's evolution, and being a human, I hold grudges. I dare you and Paul, or anyone, to underestimate me.

Or: we could violate 2023 Human norms and cooperate (or, even consider it). But then, that's not easy, and violates the 2023, Capitalist Alpha Male Overton Window of behavior, so "not exactly practical", contrary to paulg's MANY musings.

It's a bit of a pickle, eh? But only if you think...and even then, only maybe.