Semantics aside, I understand from experience how difficult it is to moderate situations like this, but as a user-privileged participant in any discussion I reserve the right to defend myself (e.g.) when somebody rolls out some half-baked strawman and then accuses me of going off topic. In this case I find it particularly ironic that in a thread full of completely baseless character attacks against Miculas, the author of the linked article (e.g. he just wants credit so he can put it on his resume), I'm the one who gets threatened with a ban for questioning that narrative and not then meekly rolling over for the ensuing tide of bullshit. If you want to see a real, unequivocal, totally one-sided personal attack, you need look no further than the original comment I replied to^[1], and you can't throw a stone from there without hitting another one. I note that those comments remain largely unflagged, which is not a surprise given how acutely vulnerable users of platforms like HN are to the bandwagon effect and similar biases.
My behavior in this regard is not going to change, but my experience in this thread is certainly raising some questions.
In the context of moderating an internet forum, we have to go by effects, not intent: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que..., for a number of reasons: (1) intent isn't observable or generally predictable; (2) effects are both observable and generally predictable; and (3) it's effects which ruin threads.
Everyone always feels like they're the one being singled out and treated unfairly—this isn't a reliable feeling, just a universal bias. If other comments broke the site guidelines as badly as you did, and the mods didn't say anything, that's only because we didn't see them.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
If you find yourself inspecting someone else's comments or behavior for how much bad faith you perceive, or what they couldn't be bothered to do, or anything of the "who said what" variety, you've already fallen off the path of curiosity* and this is a clear sign that you should refrain from posting. That's not a criticism btw! it happens to all of us and it takes work and practice to avoid it. But it's work we all have to do as a community, if HN is to last for its intended purpose. (Btw that's also the answer to why 37677835 was flagged - it wasn't a personal attack but it was a step off the garden path and into the weeds.)
When a commenter uses phrases like "bad faith" or "willfully ignorant" or "down to their level' about another commenter, it's usually a sign that they're too activated by a conversation to really practice this principle (from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html): "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." That's another sign that it would be good to refrain from posting until you no longer feel that way. Why? because first of all, you (I don't mean you personally, but all of us) are not functioning in the range of curiosity when you feel that way—it's physiologically impossible; and second, if you reply with what you call "speaking forthrightly" in that moment, you're quite likely to post things that land with the other commenter, and also the general reader, as attacks.
* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...