I agree that having rules applied to you but not others can really rankle. But consider this: do you agree with the rule that "you should not accuse people of shilling"? That is, which world do you prefer: a world where this rule was enforced perfectly (maybe not by banning people, but perhaps a public scolding or something else sever enough to act as a deterrent), or a world where it was not enforced at all, so anyone who feels like it can accuse anyone at all of shilling (we don't need no stinkin' evidence!).

(In my opinion, "only a shill would say that" does not count as evidence.)

This is a genuine question: I really have no idea whether you're objecting just to the unfairness, or whether you think the rule itself is flawed. If unfairness, then I agree with you: it sucks. If you object to the rule itself, then I think you've already figured out that I think it's a good rule.

And he also recommends that users email hn directly if they suspect shilling/sock puppetry etc instead of derailing the discussion with accusations:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11260725

It's more likely that there isn't a moderator available to watch every thread 24/7.

Don't be infuriated. It's only because we don't see all the comments.

Btw, it's true that I asked you not to accuse other users of shilling (the same way I'd ask anybody), but not true that I said we'd ban you for it.

And they are likely to be flagged.