5 ms·

I was indeed in the wrong when I made this comment four years ago. I have since apologized for it. I don't intend to re-litigate anything on HN at this point, b

I was indeed in the wrong when I made this comment four years ago. I have since apologized for it. I don't intend to re-litigate anything on HN at this point, but I have good reason to believe that this incident is unrelated to the reason I am presently banned. The linked comment was indeed out of line, and perhaps you feel justified in thinking that it should be sufficient grounds for a permanent expulsion from the community. I won't argue with that, fair enough. However, I don't think it's reasonable to use it as grounds to suggest that anyone should have their servers DoSed by Google with no recourse, and I think blocking Google is a reasonable move given two years of inaction from the Go team to resolve the issue.

tptacek 4y ago
Obviously, your expulsion from the Go issue tracker for abusive conduct is a separable issue from the Go module proxy, as you can see from Go project participants reiterating that the offer to exclude you from the refresh list still stands.
- ddevault 4y ago
  1. We would like to have a more complex discussion than saying "1" or "0" to this specific offer 2. This specific offer is not satisfactory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34313802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34313802
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Clearly it was not satisfactory to you, since it was made over 8 months ago, and you didn't take them up on it. I'm objecting here only to the framing you've created that your ouster from the Go issue forum --- which we can see was done with cause --- is what precipitated this situation.
    - ddevault 4y ago
      We can behave like adults, ask why it's not satisfactory, and come to a more agreeable mutual solution, or we can blithely offer an incomplete solution, muzzle the other party, and just continue our DDoS.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        See, here you just did it again: "muzzle the other party", as if it was causally connected to your disagreement about how the module proxy should work, and not to the abuse you inflicted on members of that community.
        ddevault 4y ago
        I admitted that my comments about EFAIL -- four years ago now -- were in the wrong, and apologized for them. Unless you're going to argue that this issue should justify consuming 70% of my system's network bandwidth without recourse, move on. In the interest of not feeding the trolls, I think I can safely stop engaging with you on this thread. Or maybe on any thread -- you and I never seem to have a productive conversation on this website.
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        > In the interest of not feeding the trolls, I think I can safely stop engaging with you on this thread. Or maybe on any thread -- you and I never seem to have a productive conversation on this website. HN would be so very much more pleasant with ignore-lists.
        burntsushi 4y ago
        [flagged]
        philosopher1234 4y ago
        The two of you are on my internal list of HN heroes. Keep fighting the good fight!
        4y ago
Beltalowda 4y ago
> I don't think it's reasonable to use it as grounds to suggest that anyone should have their servers DoSed by Google with no recourse Of course not; this entire thread isn't necessarily hugely on-topic here, but it got brought up, so ... well ... here we are. And in fairness, you did bring up your ban in the posted article. > The linked comment was indeed out of line, and perhaps you feel justified in thinking that it should be sufficient grounds for a permanent expulsion from the community. I won't argue with that, fair enough. No, I don't think anyone should be banned for a singular comment, no matter how egregious. Everyone deserves second chances, and third ones, even fourth ones maybe. There's some decent data from Stack Overflow that shows that after a ban many people keep posting and many don't get a second ban (i.e. their behaviour improves). > I have good reason to believe that this incident is unrelated to the reason I am presently banned. I think the thing is that it's part of a pattern. Usually the "final straw" isn't the worst incident, or even that bad of an incident in itself. Incidents like this aren't isolated and previous behaviour does tend to factor in: "oh, that's the same guy who called us a bunch of morons last year".
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  > "oh, that's the same guy who called us a bunch of morons last year" Wait, did some folks in the Go community write that EFAIL site that was referenced as a reason to drop OpenPGP? If so, that changes the context of the post a bit, but I didn't see anything indicating that was the case in the linked thread.

tptacek 4y ago

Obviously, your expulsion from the Go issue tracker for abusive conduct is a separable issue from the Go module proxy, as you can see from Go project participants reiterating that the offer to exclude you from the refresh list still stands.

ddevault 4y ago
1. We would like to have a more complex discussion than saying "1" or "0" to this specific offer 2. This specific offer is not satisfactory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34313802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34313802
- tptacek 4y ago
  Clearly it was not satisfactory to you, since it was made over 8 months ago, and you didn't take them up on it. I'm objecting here only to the framing you've created that your ouster from the Go issue forum --- which we can see was done with cause --- is what precipitated this situation.
  - ddevault 4y ago
    We can behave like adults, ask why it's not satisfactory, and come to a more agreeable mutual solution, or we can blithely offer an incomplete solution, muzzle the other party, and just continue our DDoS.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      See, here you just did it again: "muzzle the other party", as if it was causally connected to your disagreement about how the module proxy should work, and not to the abuse you inflicted on members of that community.
      - ddevault 4y ago
        I admitted that my comments about EFAIL -- four years ago now -- were in the wrong, and apologized for them. Unless you're going to argue that this issue should justify consuming 70% of my system's network bandwidth without recourse, move on. In the interest of not feeding the trolls, I think I can safely stop engaging with you on this thread. Or maybe on any thread -- you and I never seem to have a productive conversation on this website.
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        > In the interest of not feeding the trolls, I think I can safely stop engaging with you on this thread. Or maybe on any thread -- you and I never seem to have a productive conversation on this website. HN would be so very much more pleasant with ignore-lists.
      - burntsushi 4y ago
        [flagged]
        philosopher1234 4y ago
        The two of you are on my internal list of HN heroes. Keep fighting the good fight!
      - 4y ago

Beltalowda 4y ago

> I don't think it's reasonable to use it as grounds to suggest that anyone should have their servers DoSed by Google with no recourse Of course not; this entire thread isn't necessarily hugely on-topic here, but it got brought up, so ... well ... here we are. And in fairness, you did bring up your ban in the posted article. > The linked comment was indeed out of line, and perhaps you feel justified in thinking that it should be sufficient grounds for a permanent expulsion from the community. I won't argue with that, fair enough. No, I don't think anyone should be banned for a singular comment, no matter how egregious. Everyone deserves second chances, and third ones, even fourth ones maybe. There's some decent data from Stack Overflow that shows that after a ban many people keep posting and many don't get a second ban (i.e. their behaviour improves). > I have good reason to believe that this incident is unrelated to the reason I am presently banned. I think the thing is that it's part of a pattern. Usually the "final straw" isn't the worst incident, or even that bad of an incident in itself. Incidents like this aren't isolated and previous behaviour does tend to factor in: "oh, that's the same guy who called us a bunch of morons last year".

yamtaddle 4y ago
> "oh, that's the same guy who called us a bunch of morons last year" Wait, did some folks in the Go community write that EFAIL site that was referenced as a reason to drop OpenPGP? If so, that changes the context of the post a bit, but I didn't see anything indicating that was the case in the linked thread.