6 ms·

Why do you keep bugging someone when they obviously do not want you to contact them? Blocking you is a way of saying "Leave me alone!" Not replying to direct

Why do you keep bugging someone when they obviously do not want you to contact them? Blocking you is a way of saying "Leave me alone!" Not replying to direct messages or emails is a way of saying "Leave me alone!" Nobody needs to explain why they want to be left alone. Maybe stop thinking about yourself, and just accept that the people behind the twitter handles just don't want you to contact them anymore for whatever reason.

oytis 8y ago
Not to argue if ghosting is a morally appropriate way of communication in one's personal life, but it was not about someone's personal account, rather of one of a professional conference. It is definitely not how one should do their business communications.
BonoboIO 8y ago
I think this is not a private or personal thing, this just unprofessional handling of an yet unclear situation. Like beeing conficted without a trial (of course this is just a business relationship between him and the conference). Imagine that Hacker News would ban your account jakobegger, no explanation, no way to get informations why or what you did wrong. Would you just accept this as just "leave me alone"?
- goldenkey 8y ago
  The reason we respect HN and its respective admins, is because they explain their decisions quite openly and transparently, and will even discuss issues over email. I was actually banned a few years ago because I was being a negative, hateful, POS due to some events in my life combined with clouded judgment. But I appealed, and began posting better comments that were more in line with what one would expect from a discussion forum for positivity (startups) and rationalism (tech.) I'm sure there are many others like me who the admins treated quite fairly and with respect. "Silent treatment" is a last resort, in all other cases it is just a weak and impotent thing to do.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    > The reason we respect HN and its respective admins, is because they explain their decisions quite openly and transparently ...Except when they shadowban people. (Who aren't obviously spammers or dedicated trolls.)
    - goldenkey 8y ago
      Shadowban is mostly a tool to deal with idiots constantly posting attention-seeking comments. If someone isn't smart enough to realize their comments are not being replied to, they aren't the kind of person you really want to contend with. Shadowban deals with people who post comments where the intent is to rouse, not to converse. So much of the time, they don't expect replies, and thus they can continue to post their crap to themselves, and only themselves. I don't think shadowban is polite or nice but it is effective.
    - dang 8y ago
      Those are indeed the categories that we shadowban, so if you know of exceptions I'd like to see them.
- tpush 8y ago
  > Imagine that Hacker News would ban your account jakobegger, no explanation, no way to get informations why or what you did wrong. Would you just accept this as just "leave me alone"? I mean, they literally do this in the from of shadow banning.
  - hycaria 8y ago
    I doubt they'd do it without warning you before hand to comply to the guidelines.
    - thinkingemote 8y ago
      The thought experiment in the GP was what if they didn't
  - dang 8y ago
    That's not accurate. Shadow-banning is rare to begin with (reserved for spammers, serial trolls, and other forms of abuse), and even when we do it it's always possible for people to get information by emailing us. I can think of a couple exceptions to that but they've all been preceded by long email chains. If an account has been posting to HN for a while and hasn't been banned under other guises, we always tell them when we're banning them, and nearly always after multiple warnings.
ItsMe000001 8y ago
What you say is true if it was a private person. This is about a conference that seems to be important professionally to that person. They even replied to him - why not just say WHY and get it over with once and for all? This is just stupid, not (just) unprofessional. If they could at least point to "we already told you, now get lost" - but never giving a reason... it's not like they could be sued (first, Europe, second, just a Twitter block), so the usual (at least understandable) justifications e.g. when not giving reasons when not hiring someone don't apply.
- abcd_f 8y ago
  Perhaps all his 30 speech proposals were completely inane and he's been viewed by organizers as that spammy fellow in late stages Dunning–Kruger syndrome? If that's the case, then muting communications is the least offensive option and it is entirely appropriate. However it does require the other side to be able to take a hint.
  - ItsMe000001 8y ago
    Perhaps - then tell him. The reason does not matter (especially since we are unlikely to hear it from anyone), what matters is that they refuse to say what it is. "Effort" is not an excuse either since they even replied to him - but with something unprofessional while still leaving out the reason for no good reason that I can think of. You can even mask it behind a more fuzzy reason if you think the specific reason is not good enough to be made public, but they did not even make the attempt. > then muting communications is the least offensive option Only after telling him. Something, anything - they could even make up a polite "official" reason and keep the truth for themselves as we humans often do, which can actually be perfectly okay. But stubbornly refusing to give any reason at all... no, that's not okay. It would be if it was between individuals, but not for a professional organization, especially one that the person may not be able to ignore even if they wanted to, since he seems to find them a valuable contribution for his professional life.
    - abraae 8y ago
      Disagree. A while ago I experimented with giving job applicants honest feedback on why they were unsuccessful - not just the old platitudes like"there were stronger candidates". Big mistake. When you reject people, they really really want to dig in, know why and then refute or try to overturn that.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dangerface 8y ago
Blocking you is a way of saying "Leave me alone!" Thats an assumption it could have been a mistake, it could have been temporary, it could have been any number of reasons. Maybe there is a good reason they blocked you, if you knew this reason maybe you could fix it or accept your differences and move on, both good social outcomes for both parties. You are being anti-social by assuming other people actions. You also assume that the other persons action was also anti-social. You then assume that doing the social thing and talking to the person in a reasonable manor will be treated as unreasonable and anti-social (this makes sense if you think they are anti-social). So you don't ask, their anti-social behaviour is never questioned and they carry on with it. They probably blocked you for a reason, you were being anti-social but since you never questioned that reason you too will carry on with it. This anti-social behaviour encourages itself.
michaelmrose 8y ago
Adults can verbalize or type the words leave me alone

oytis 8y ago

Not to argue if ghosting is a morally appropriate way of communication in one's personal life, but it was not about someone's personal account, rather of one of a professional conference. It is definitely not how one should do their business communications.

BonoboIO 8y ago

I think this is not a private or personal thing, this just unprofessional handling of an yet unclear situation. Like beeing conficted without a trial (of course this is just a business relationship between him and the conference). Imagine that Hacker News would ban your account jakobegger, no explanation, no way to get informations why or what you did wrong. Would you just accept this as just "leave me alone"?

goldenkey 8y ago
The reason we respect HN and its respective admins, is because they explain their decisions quite openly and transparently, and will even discuss issues over email. I was actually banned a few years ago because I was being a negative, hateful, POS due to some events in my life combined with clouded judgment. But I appealed, and began posting better comments that were more in line with what one would expect from a discussion forum for positivity (startups) and rationalism (tech.) I'm sure there are many others like me who the admins treated quite fairly and with respect. "Silent treatment" is a last resort, in all other cases it is just a weak and impotent thing to do.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  > The reason we respect HN and its respective admins, is because they explain their decisions quite openly and transparently ...Except when they shadowban people. (Who aren't obviously spammers or dedicated trolls.)
  - goldenkey 8y ago
    Shadowban is mostly a tool to deal with idiots constantly posting attention-seeking comments. If someone isn't smart enough to realize their comments are not being replied to, they aren't the kind of person you really want to contend with. Shadowban deals with people who post comments where the intent is to rouse, not to converse. So much of the time, they don't expect replies, and thus they can continue to post their crap to themselves, and only themselves. I don't think shadowban is polite or nice but it is effective.
  - dang 8y ago
    Those are indeed the categories that we shadowban, so if you know of exceptions I'd like to see them.
tpush 8y ago
> Imagine that Hacker News would ban your account jakobegger, no explanation, no way to get informations why or what you did wrong. Would you just accept this as just "leave me alone"? I mean, they literally do this in the from of shadow banning.
- hycaria 8y ago
  I doubt they'd do it without warning you before hand to comply to the guidelines.
  - thinkingemote 8y ago
    The thought experiment in the GP was what if they didn't
- dang 8y ago
  That's not accurate. Shadow-banning is rare to begin with (reserved for spammers, serial trolls, and other forms of abuse), and even when we do it it's always possible for people to get information by emailing us. I can think of a couple exceptions to that but they've all been preceded by long email chains. If an account has been posting to HN for a while and hasn't been banned under other guises, we always tell them when we're banning them, and nearly always after multiple warnings.

ItsMe000001 8y ago

What you say is true if it was a private person. This is about a conference that seems to be important professionally to that person. They even replied to him - why not just say WHY and get it over with once and for all? This is just stupid, not (just) unprofessional. If they could at least point to "we already told you, now get lost" - but never giving a reason... it's not like they could be sued (first, Europe, second, just a Twitter block), so the usual (at least understandable) justifications e.g. when not giving reasons when not hiring someone don't apply.

abcd_f 8y ago
Perhaps all his 30 speech proposals were completely inane and he's been viewed by organizers as that spammy fellow in late stages Dunning–Kruger syndrome? If that's the case, then muting communications is the least offensive option and it is entirely appropriate. However it does require the other side to be able to take a hint.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  Perhaps - then tell him. The reason does not matter (especially since we are unlikely to hear it from anyone), what matters is that they refuse to say what it is. "Effort" is not an excuse either since they even replied to him - but with something unprofessional while still leaving out the reason for no good reason that I can think of. You can even mask it behind a more fuzzy reason if you think the specific reason is not good enough to be made public, but they did not even make the attempt. > then muting communications is the least offensive option Only after telling him. Something, anything - they could even make up a polite "official" reason and keep the truth for themselves as we humans often do, which can actually be perfectly okay. But stubbornly refusing to give any reason at all... no, that's not okay. It would be if it was between individuals, but not for a professional organization, especially one that the person may not be able to ignore even if they wanted to, since he seems to find them a valuable contribution for his professional life.
  - abraae 8y ago
    Disagree. A while ago I experimented with giving job applicants honest feedback on why they were unsuccessful - not just the old platitudes like"there were stronger candidates". Big mistake. When you reject people, they really really want to dig in, know why and then refute or try to overturn that.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dangerface 8y ago

Blocking you is a way of saying "Leave me alone!" Thats an assumption it could have been a mistake, it could have been temporary, it could have been any number of reasons. Maybe there is a good reason they blocked you, if you knew this reason maybe you could fix it or accept your differences and move on, both good social outcomes for both parties. You are being anti-social by assuming other people actions. You also assume that the other persons action was also anti-social. You then assume that doing the social thing and talking to the person in a reasonable manor will be treated as unreasonable and anti-social (this makes sense if you think they are anti-social). So you don't ask, their anti-social behaviour is never questioned and they carry on with it. They probably blocked you for a reason, you were being anti-social but since you never questioned that reason you too will carry on with it. This anti-social behaviour encourages itself.

michaelmrose 8y ago

Adults can verbalize or type the words leave me alone