[mmt]

The problem here is there's no way to know the "spirit" without knowledge of its history.

Why not just say what you mean, instead? If the desire is "no replies that are or might spark a controversy", then why doesn't the rule say that?

Better yet, go all the way and forbid replies entirely. That achieves the same stifling of conversation, in this one context where it's deemed "terrible", without the enforcement that can seem capricious and arbitrary (as you say yourself, "it's often not easy to tell the difference") and can needlessly shame an otherwise well-intentioned commenter.

[dang]

I get that you feel strongly against this rule and how we choose to moderate the Who Is Hiring threads. But we've been over this at least three times, for over a year now, and I'm not sure what else to say. I don't see anything new to respond to here. You just strongly disagree. That's fine; I understand your argument and it's a good one; it's just not as strong, in my mind, as the opposite consideration. It's my job to make this call, so I've made it. Continuing to prosecute the case is unhelpful, and escalating like you've just been doing is particularly so.

[mmt]

I do disagree with the rule, but I fear you're having a knee-jerk reaction either to me or to any criticism of the rule and thereby missing my point, which I don't believe you've addressed at all:

If you can explain in a short, simple sentence what the broader purpose of the rule is, then do so in the rule itself. Brevity may be the soul of wit but, but I expect a higher standard than rule wittiness from HN. The https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html do this fine.

Wouldn't you rather have compliance than enforcement?