6 ms·

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

by 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.
  - boltonia 4y ago
    The issue isn’t that MOC is gone, because who cares if we lose one contributor, or how much on an apology (if any) Dan owes him. It’s that we can’t trust HN’s moderation not to keep doing what they did to him, which is spend over a year trying to destroy his reputation. Who knows who else they’ve done that to?
    - nkurz 4y ago
      What are the ways in which you think they tried to "destroy his reputation"? By banning him and accusing him of making sockpuppets, or something else? Or by failing to delete posts by individuals who made other accusations? Links would be helpful if it's something public. Edit: I now see your comment in another thread about Quora and Thailand. I was looking at the "threads" link before, so didn't see those. Even if these are true (I don't know about these, but I confess I'm doubtful without proof), I suspect that Dan (the moderator of HN, and not so-far-as-I-know a bigwig on HN's investment side) wouldn't be the individual responsible for these. Edit 2: You started with a suggestion that Michael should be unbanned (which seems like a reasonable position), and then moved to suggesting that bringing him back wasn't the point, and that HN's moderation team has committed sins for which they should never be forgiven. Presumably you have reasons to feel this way, but it seems like a bait-and-switch. It also leaves me wondering who you are, and what your actual motivations are. I'm feeling played, and think I'll bow out at this point.

by nkurz 4y ago

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.
- boltonia 4y ago
  The issue isn’t that MOC is gone, because who cares if we lose one contributor, or how much on an apology (if any) Dan owes him. It’s that we can’t trust HN’s moderation not to keep doing what they did to him, which is spend over a year trying to destroy his reputation. Who knows who else they’ve done that to?
  - nkurz 4y ago
    What are the ways in which you think they tried to "destroy his reputation"? By banning him and accusing him of making sockpuppets, or something else? Or by failing to delete posts by individuals who made other accusations? Links would be helpful if it's something public. Edit: I now see your comment in another thread about Quora and Thailand. I was looking at the "threads" link before, so didn't see those. Even if these are true (I don't know about these, but I confess I'm doubtful without proof), I suspect that Dan (the moderator of HN, and not so-far-as-I-know a bigwig on HN's investment side) wouldn't be the individual responsible for these. Edit 2: You started with a suggestion that Michael should be unbanned (which seems like a reasonable position), and then moved to suggesting that bringing him back wasn't the point, and that HN's moderation team has committed sins for which they should never be forgiven. Presumably you have reasons to feel this way, but it seems like a bait-and-switch. It also leaves me wondering who you are, and what your actual motivations are. I'm feeling played, and think I'll bow out at this point.