When I look at the number of flagged political topics on /active (often which have clear connection to the software industry) I still only see a couple. Going from one such post on the front page to three doesn't seem like it would ruin the front page.
Hang on, you've not responded to anything I've said and are just piling on the questions. You kinda have to address what this different HN would look like and how it would be different and/or better than the one now. Like, you say 'unreasonable', 'not right' and when the things you're talking about are explained, you just move on to something else. What specifically is unreasonable about 30 fp slots and users and moderators using repetition-reducing conventions? Why would it be 'not right' to have a nerd messageboard be, again, by convention, fairly light on regular news type news?
What would "glut" mean to you? [...] Why is "activation" bad? [...] clear connection to the software industry*
The first two are basic concepts of how HN works, there is endless mod commentary about them (i.e. repetition, high-dudgeonery, etc) and you're surely familiar with them after a near decade here. The last one is a common misconception but HN's remit is not 'things with a clear connection to the software industry'.
If you want a different HN, advocate for that different HN instead of having me explain the existing HN to you - you can get better explanations elsewhere, beside the fact you're already likely familiar with them.
My claim is that it would not be so different that the front page is inundated with these topics while also ensuring that people are more able to talk about these topics when they feel it is relevant without being stifled by individuals.
I believe that I am advocating for that different HN. I believe that flagging topics because "too many" other political topics have been submitted recently is bad and should stop.
My claim is that it would not be so different that the front page is inundated with these topics while also ensuring that people are more able to talk about these topics when they feel it is relevant without being stifled by individuals.
There's no evidence to suggest this claim is true and a great deal that that demonstrates it isn't. This has happened on HN several times and you were probably around for at least one of them.
I believe that I am advocating for that different HN. I believe that flagging topics because "too many" other political topics have been submitted recently is bad and should stop.
I, too, believe that you are. What is not clear to me on why you believe these things and how they would improve HN. Like, you know the design of HN because a) you're using it b) it's been explained a bunch plus there's ready access to lots more. What's your design? How is this going to work, what part of HN has to be changed and what consequences do you think that would have? What about the kind of consequences the current design tries to avoid? "I'd like more of these stories on the fp" is not that, it's just a statement of preference.
I believe that meaningful evidence is examining the volume of flagged submissions on /new and /active and noting that it is not zero but also not overwhelming.
You do you, I guess. I think that the community and industry is impoverished by these topics being limited in this manner.
What is that evidence of, other than that lots of people are submitting political stories, and that if we didn't have the moderation we have now, the front page would be nothing but those stories? It seems like you're making his point for him.
When I look at the number of flagged political topics on /active (often which have clear connection to the software industry) I still only see a couple. Going from one such post on the front page to three doesn't seem like it would ruin the front page.
Why is "activation" bad?