>but the difference is that here dang or somebody will show up to calm down incivility and point to the guidelines
Commonly, guidelines will be referenced, but the guidelines are very numerous and sometimes there are 'unspoken' rules backed up with 'a decision had to be made'. For example, blocking an article from being editing, and then marking for deletion, so you can't add content to it. Badmins will argue 'its not in the guidelines', so obviously they can do what they deem right.
We really need better wiki software so people can make their own.
This comes up all the time, but I think it just comes down to that HN is not a democracy, does not aspire to be one, and as far as I can tell, it never has had that aspiration.
I think the best metaphor for HN is that Paul Graham has invited all of us to his house for drinks and discussion. There are not a lot of limits on that discussion, but sure, if you are boisterous enough, someone will ask you to leave. There isn't due process and you don't have any rights, because we're just guests at a party. The rules are not applied by the admins as a judge might interpret statutes. Rather, they are there as helpful guidelines for the socially clueless as to how guests should behave.
I feel approaching HN in this way makes it very enjoyable. Personally, I have found the discussion at this gathering to be top notch.
Of course, it's not for everyone. If you would prefer discussion board as mini-nation state (another excellent model, in my opinion), I think reddit does a good job with that.
Commonly, guidelines will be referenced, but the guidelines are very numerous and sometimes there are 'unspoken' rules backed up with 'a decision had to be made'. For example, blocking an article from being editing, and then marking for deletion, so you can't add content to it. Badmins will argue 'its not in the guidelines', so obviously they can do what they deem right.
We really need better wiki software so people can make their own.