5 ms·

Ask HN: Shouldn’t Michael O. Church be unbanned by now?

9 points by boltonia 4y ago

Anon for obvious reasons, but I’ve been here 10+ years and have low five-digit karma. I get that he was sometimes argumentative but it doesn’t sit well with me that we silenced him, or that I am part of a community whose moderators went out of their way to destroy a good man’s reputation. Shouldn’t we welcome him back? It makes us look bad to have silenced him.

giantg2 4y ago
"It makes us look bad to have silenced him." Does it make us look bad? Why? I have no background on the user other than the links posted by others. Sounds like he there were warned multiple times not to call names and they did again. Maybe people should be allowed back, maybe on probation, after some time has passed. I assume that's an informal process of appealing to dang.
- boltonia 4y ago
  The ban itself is not so much an issue as (a) the chilling effect on other contributors who are still here, (b) the collateral damage on Dan/Paul’s vendetta, like when the whole country of Thailand was banned for three days, and (c) the fact that these people spent years trying to smear an innocent man’s reputation.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I'm sorry, I must be missing a whole lot of stuff. I'm not aware of any chilling affect. I also don't have any knowledge around the details of the 3 day ban. I'm not sure what smearing is going on either.
    - boltonia 4y ago
      About a month after they bumped him off, they extorted Quora, in which Y combinator is an investor, into banning him (and of course lying about why they did so).
HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
> the chilling effect on other contributors who are still here What chilling effect? Not being an asshole? I'm OK with that.
nkurz 4y ago
I think you are begging the question that he was wrongly banned. It's long enough that I forgot the details (or never knew them) but I doubt he was banned for simply being argumentative. If his presence is bad for the site, then no, we shouldn't welcome him back. If having him here is good for the site, then he shouldn't have been banned in the first place. Separately, could you explain why you created a new account for this question? It's not obvious to me. I think the implication is that you fear repercussion for asking the question. Personally, I think this is an unnecessary fear. In any case, I think it undercuts your argument and makes me wonder about your motivations.
- boltonia 4y ago
  I’m posting anonymously because I have a justified lack of trust in HN’s moderation and don’t want to face retaliation for pointing out something inconvenient. I’ll admit that I’ve only been following MOC for the past few years, which seems to be after everything went down, but your “he must have done something to deserve it” argument is invalid. I’ve been in HN long enough to know that this place has a history of moderation decisions that are hard or impossible to justify.
  - nkurz 4y ago
    While my memory is fuzzy, I'm making a stronger argument than "he must have done something". Searching now for reasons of the actual ban, I find this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10017538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10017538. In summary, Dan thought Michael called Marissa Meyer a cunt using an archaic spelling and decided this was a final straw. Micheal came back to argue that the difference in spelling was significant, and accused Dan of having a tantrum: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10034887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10034887. I actually appreciate Michael's writings, and think they are sometimes appropriate to be discussed here. I seem to recall encouraging Dan to override a flag on one of his pieces years ago. On the other hand, I think maintaining a norm of civil discourse is important to keep the site usable. Coming back under a new account after a ban to insult the moderator after a possibly questionable decision seems like a big red flag to me. I do appreciate that he did it under his own name, though. I personally don't recall seeing any moderation decisions that are "hard or impossible to justify". I have seen a few that I would make differently, but I presume this is because I am aiming for different tradeoffs than Dan does, and not because he's irrationally acting out of personal spite. I generally like the results of his actions, and think the site would be much worse if he wasn't as proactive. Anyway, if the goal is to get Michael back on the site, I think email from Michael to Dan expressing a willingness to follow the rules as they currently exist would be a more effective approach than a shame campaign. My guess is that he'd be welcome if he'd follow the rules, but based on prior evidence this seems unlikely to go well as he doesn't appear to feel bound to follow rules he disagrees with.