It’s not a “personal attack”. If a man drinks to excess everyday and I refer to him as an alcoholic I’m not attacking him. It’s simply an unpleasant fact. If I provide evidence to support a statement and someone irrationally denies it then it’s fair to say they’re in denial.
Search HN via Algolia for "by:dang personal attacks" to see his guidelines. In some cases he'll spell these out in more detail and the rationale behind them, which should further clarify rule, intent, and rationale.
Generally, mods' goals are something of a dual mandate: intellectual curiosity (see: <>), and trying to keep the discussion from boiling over, which it's constantly on the verge of. I'm not finding the comment I'd had in mind yet, but this one at least hints at the concept: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32588063>.
For clarity: I'm not a mod, I occasionally disagree strongly with mod's positions. But I've also come to understand, if at times grudgingly accept, their principles.
The point is that if you're consistently violating HN's guidelines, you'll find yourself penalised. Mostly by ordinary participants such as myself, but if you're persistent and insistent, mods will eventually step in.
And "just telling the truth" isn't a defence, justification, or excuse.
If you want to explore this issue further, you are free to search though dang's voluminous set of responses on this and other topics.
