52 ms·

I'm not trying to put anyone in their place. In a way, that kind of dominance-hierarchy BS is exactly what I'm objecting to. The point here is that this new r

I'm not trying to put anyone in their place. In a way, that kind of dominance-hierarchy BS is exactly what I'm objecting to. The point here is that this new response from Coda doesn't even address the technical debate. It doesn't make one new point in that area. It's entirely about smoothing ruffled feathers, so responses about the ruffling and smoothing of feathers are completely fair game. Furthermore, this kind of "reputation management" (or whatever you want to call it) really does matter, and I think there are important lessons the HN audience can take away from it. Being conciliatory toward one person or group just isn't very convincing if you're almost simultaneously trying just as hard as ever to alienate others. The mixed messages, even though they're supposedly addressed to different people, make even the conciliatory part seem insincere. If I were in Donald's or Martin's position, I'd be wondering how long the constructive tone - and the original letter was very constructive - will last before the inevitable reversion to form. The lesson is that if you want to claim the moral high ground you have to stand on it for a while. Stephen was wrong to publish what should have remained private correspondence, but calling him out like that only ensures that the controversy will continue. The urge to bare teeth and show dominance overwhelmed the rational choice to let this whole thing fade into a natural and well deserved obscurity. What was called for was de-escalation, and anybody else who finds themselves in a similar situation (many of us have or will BTW) would do well to watch how this one plays out.

tptacek 15y ago
I don't think you're following me. You can't correct Coda. He doesn't care. All you can do is take the thread in one direction or another. I think this is a bad direction for our threads to go. Also: I don't think you can talk about "de-escalation" when you brought the issue up on the thread.
- CPlatypus 15y ago
  "You can't correct Coda. He doesn't care." I know that. What I might be able to do, though, is explain why his example might be a bad one to follow. Or maybe it's a good one, for those of the "no publicity is bad publicity" mindset. In any case, I think it's worth it to express my view. These things do affect businesses and livelihoods. Maybe it's too "meta" for some people, but - unlike some - I won't tell people who disagree that they should remain silent. "I think this is a bad direction for our threads to go" It's not only a bad direction for "our" threads to go; it's a bad direction for the broader discussion - across here, Twitter, various blogs, etc. - to go. That's my point. HN isn't an island. I've seen quite a few people who disable comments on their blog posts and explicitly direct readers to the corresponding post here for discussion. The real damage to real reputations is being done elsewhere, and condemning those who point it out here seems counterproductive. "I don't think you can talk about "de-escalation"" Ad hominem, pure and simple. I'm not one of the principals here. I have nothing to do with the companies or communities involved. As a mere commentator, nothing I say affects those relationships one way or another, so de/escalation is an inoperative concept. If you want to disagree with me fine, but please stop finding new ways to tell me I shouldn't even have an opinion.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    In that my argument is entirely about calling you out for poisoning the thread, yes, I think it's fair to call it ad hominem.

tptacek 15y ago

I don't think you're following me. You can't correct Coda. He doesn't care. All you can do is take the thread in one direction or another. I think this is a bad direction for our threads to go. Also: I don't think you can talk about "de-escalation" when you brought the issue up on the thread.

CPlatypus 15y ago
"You can't correct Coda. He doesn't care." I know that. What I might be able to do, though, is explain why his example might be a bad one to follow. Or maybe it's a good one, for those of the "no publicity is bad publicity" mindset. In any case, I think it's worth it to express my view. These things do affect businesses and livelihoods. Maybe it's too "meta" for some people, but - unlike some - I won't tell people who disagree that they should remain silent. "I think this is a bad direction for our threads to go" It's not only a bad direction for "our" threads to go; it's a bad direction for the broader discussion - across here, Twitter, various blogs, etc. - to go. That's my point. HN isn't an island. I've seen quite a few people who disable comments on their blog posts and explicitly direct readers to the corresponding post here for discussion. The real damage to real reputations is being done elsewhere, and condemning those who point it out here seems counterproductive. "I don't think you can talk about "de-escalation"" Ad hominem, pure and simple. I'm not one of the principals here. I have nothing to do with the companies or communities involved. As a mere commentator, nothing I say affects those relationships one way or another, so de/escalation is an inoperative concept. If you want to disagree with me fine, but please stop finding new ways to tell me I shouldn't even have an opinion.
- tptacek 15y ago
  In that my argument is entirely about calling you out for poisoning the thread, yes, I think it's fair to call it ad hominem.