And yet, years after Dan took over as moderator,
and over a decade after Paul posted his comment,
the site is still going strong, and arguably is
one of the best places for discussion on the internet.
HN is a success and does the vast majority of things well. But it makes no sense to sweep aside criticism with "well, it's working." It succeeds
because of the things it does well and
in spite of the things it does suboptimally.
HN moderation generally works well in spite of the actual technical implementation; it succeeds because HN has a high-quality readership who generally follows the internet etiquette of "downvote posts that harm the discussion, not simply because you disagree."
One thing I'd recommend, if you haven't done so already,
is to at least occasionally browse with "Showdead" turned on
(accessible through your profile link in the upper right).
The majority of the things that are dead deserve to be,
but the others can often be rescued by vouching for them.
Amen! I wholeheartedly agree and I do that for this very reason.