> It may be falling short of what
you think it should be.
It may not be falling short of what you think it should be.
> A bunch of the rest of us don't think that, though.
And if a bunch of us do think that, what then?
> You may feel strongly about what you think we should do, but you don't get to tell the rest of us what the site should be about.
Sure, but neither does anyone else. Like, ehm, you.
> You don't get to tear up the community guidelines and write your own.
What if many of us think they might need a few changes? What if most of us do? I mean, you seem to be arguing on the assumption that nobody, or at least almost nobody, does. Do you have any statistics to back that up?
> Let HN be what it is.
(At the risk of sounding somewhat Clintonian:) So what "is" HN?
If you're going to say "What it's always been!", then... No. It already isn't. Becasuse nothing ever is "what it's always been". Eternal constants don't exist; everything changes all the time. (Guy I used to know back in Ephesus used to say that.) HN now is already something very different than what we got user IDs on back in 2013, and it ain't gonna stop changing. So where were you with your resistance to change for the last dozen years or so?
> If that doesn't match what you want, go find somewhere else that does.
"Just because the Democratic Party is actually advocating labour camps for capitalists and mandatory sex change operations for everybody now is no reason for you to demand it should change! Let it be what it is, and if that doesn't match what you want, go find somewhere else that does!"
"Just because the Republican Party is actually advocating concentration camps for immigrants and mandatory megachurch membership for everybody now is no reason for you to demand it should change! Let it be what it is, and if that doesn't match what you want, go find somewhere else that does!"
See how ridiculous that is? So no, that's not how any of this works.
