And despite occasional (and strong) disagreements with dang and sctb, they do a really good job on HN.
After you make your peace with that, theres an entire world of rules and theories on moderation, all of it useful and important to get the job done.
The cheat code to cut through that mess is -
"I'm coming to agree that theres no substitute for good editorial control"
Trust me on this, the proof is to painful to reproduced regularly.
(You're going to have to try harder for an argument ;-)
Like teachers, now editors are another social good that we need to manage information dissemination optimized for civilization's good.
I've been exploring this topic, as a particular focus over the past year, though it's been an interest for some years.
If you look back to the Catholic inquisition (and its precursors), Gutenberg, Martin Luther (500th anniversary coming up at the end of October), J.S. Mill (I've run across some excellent discussion by Hans Jensen: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6x7u6a/on_the_... and http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00346760110081599 (available via Sci-Hub)).
It's sobering.
People like to complain about heavy-handed moderation but all the experiments to try and build self-moderating communities eventually get overrun with trolls and (worse) self-promoters.
Any automated system will eventually be gamed, something that even huge sites like twitter and youtube are starting to realize now that state-level actors are using them for their own purposes.