What is a problem with (modest and appreciated/upvoted) copy-pasting old, relevant posts? A strict policy against that could turn into a conversation consisting solely of links...
The linked moderator comments explain it in detail and it's not really conversation if you're just recycling a stash of prepared commentary, linked or pasted. If you don't have much new to say, link it or let it be.
HN is specialized in current discussions as compared to forums. This is why we don't have notifications here. Very often people ask the same questions or make the same wrong assumptions. (Not exceeding) copy-pasting helps to keep the local discussion going without forcing people to click a lot. It also allows to improve your answer with time.
Pasting the same comment at people over and over is pretty lame on its own, yes, you should stop doing it on HN whether you like the rule or not. You don't have to stamp 'incorrect' on every comment you think is wrong - it's boring for everyone involved. The goal is interesting conversation not 'keeping the discussion going', especially when the thing stops meaningfully being a discussion.
Speak for yourself: I get upvotes every time (up to 22).
> You don't have to stamp 'incorrect' on every comment you think is wrong
New people often make the same mistake about privacy and I choose to correct them, because I think it's very important. It never was about "keeping the discussion going" for me. Quite the opposite, actually.
It's mostly a classical "nothing to hide argument" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument), which is unbelievably popular, sadly. There are hundreds of threads trying to explain it to someone every month, with all the same arguments, reworded. My posts stop this repeated discussions, because nobody found a counterpoint (yet?). From this reasoning, I believe it's worth to copy-paste instead of ignoring (and letting the discussion go the same way again), or linking (and loosing the attention of most observers who, quite reasonably, don't want to click a lot).
There are usually some reasons for the moderation policies, hopefully such that they improve the discussion. I explained how my actions improve the discussion (by cutting repeated arguments about the nothing-to-hide). You are just dismissing my arguments without any explanation. Aren't you breaking the HN rules in this way?
I don't believe so. I'm not dismissing your arguments, it's just that here, this argument has been argued and settled. Your particular approach has been found not to improve discussion (as explained in exhaustive detail) so to participate meaningfully, you gotta avoid it for reasons that go well beyond just the act of pasting:
I'm too lazy to mail the mods. Also, this thread is a reply to the mod's message, so I hope he is reading this.
Meanwhile, I will assume that I'm doing a good thing. I don't see how your link provides an explanation "in exhaustive detail". What are "canned response" even are? When someone says "I have nothing to hide", any response might be considered as canned - so is it better to let people be unaware?
