I think your explanation is most likely because it assumes the least, but considering the way the guidelines have evolved, I’m willing to believe that this was being actively used by bad actors, and not simply a change that was easily justified once you saw fit to do so.
However, we don’t have any logs of moderator interventions in the functioning of the site in other ways. I’ve heard Dang say that one of my posts was downranked because it was basically a bad look for the #1 post on HN to be a post about n, where the post about n happened to be my post, and was on-topic for HN.
Edit for clarity: the interaction was over email or on HN but I don’t recall which; that is, not in literal earshot, and was direct communication to me, not indirect etc.
I have no access to the code base. My supposition is based on some professional exposure to “broken window policy”, the nature of the comments in this thread, and what a rational actor might do if similar remarks were likely to under dead comments if that rational actor was motivated to create an environment fostering intellectually interesting comments.
To put it another way, I assume in the long run Hobbes is usually accurate. The sovereign’s sole responsibility is to keep the peace, and a Platonic philosopher king is the best outcome we are likely to get…which is to say that peace is kept by means most conducive to making each social contract a win-win.
But it is still a social contract. If a person doesn’t find its execution acceptable, a philosopher king allows them to leave with their health intact.
Again, I did not change the codebase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity
I agree with you about the pragmatic nature of moderation under discussion, to your point.