6 ms·

> Incidentally, most of my notoriety at Google (if people > still know of me, and I honestly have no clue) comes > from the fact that I raised the game qual

> Incidentally, most of my notoriety at Google (if people > still know of me, and I honestly have no clue) comes > from the fact that I raised the game quality issue and > drew negative attention from powerful people (contrary > to Google's professed "we welcome disagreement" ethos). It is unlikely that the Google engineers present during your employment will ever forget you. Indeed, the story of Michael Church continues to echo throughout mailing lists across all of engineering. However, I doubt this is only because you irritated senior executives by sending them rambling manifestos about the inherent superiority of your self-designed card game. Although that may have been the origin of your legend, it was not truly cemented until you cross-posted them to a company-wide mailing list and then engaged in a flamewar against all comers. After your resignation, some of us compared notes on who had received the most disproportionate response to criticism. I was sure that being called a child molester in reply to pointing out your lack of credible accomplishment would win me first, but sadly I did not even place in the top three.

jspthrowaway2 14y ago
The tale of Michael Church resonates throughout the entire valley. It certainly isn't limited to Google. I wish a Googler on his way out would leak the threads, honestly; I want to see if they live up to the tales. Context, for the uninitiated (grab a beer before searching): "site:news.ycombinator.com michaelochurch google"
- anatoly 14y ago
  Not limited to Google, not by a long shot. "Speaking personally, on every day that I'm blocked, I add college traditions that never existed, transpose digits of population figures or world records, and create articles on bullshit "folklore" that is often absurd; this is what Wikipedia will have to put up with if I am to be blocked from it. About 1 in 3 of my vandalisms survives for a year, and several have been reproduced on other articles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mike_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_so... etc. It's a gift that keeps on giving.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    You do realize that (a) most of those "sockpuppet" accounts are nonexistent (0 contributions) and (b) User:Isomorphic was kicked out of school for being caught drunk with his 15-year-old girlfriend, right? If not, then you don't know what you're talking about.
    - jrockway 14y ago
      I've learned quite a bit about the michaelochurch argument technique from this thread: Step 1: Make up stories about your enemy that nobody on the forum can verify. (Be it that your manager is a terrorist or that the Wikipedia admin who banned you is a child rapist.) Step 2: ??? Step 3: Post again with an even more grandiose tale. Why are you wasting your time on HN when you could be writing screenplays instead?
      - michaelochurch 14y ago
        I have no idea whether "User: Isomorphic" was a child rapist. He got in trouble for her being intoxicated, and for supplying alcohol to a minor, and so there were a lot of suspicions, but I don't know what was proven and, quite honestly, I don't want to even think about that. I prefer not to think about the sorts of people who do that stuff. The "terrorist" thing is getting taken way out of its original context. I was not comparing Google's problem executives to terrorists. I was saying that they enjoy destruction and take inspiration from it. I could have replaced "terrorist attacks" with "gruesome accidents". They're saboteurs, not terrorists.
Locke1689 14y ago
OK, that's enough of that. I was an intern during this bullshit. To anyone not "in the know" on this: there's nothing to know. There was a big pointless flame war on an internal listserv at Google over some objections that Michael had to how Google runs certain things. Googlers disagreed. I'll say that I disagreed with Michael, but the people on the other side are almost as responsible for letting themselves be sucked into such a stupid flame war. There is nothing interesting here. This is a Google soap opera. The rest of HN can comfortably go on with their lives without worrying.
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  I think this sort of thing repeats itself because Michael consistently blames Google for his departure, and has a tendency to show up "when summoned" (i.e, when Google is ever mentioned on Hacker News). If I worked somewhere and an ex-employee shit all over my employer at every opportunity, I'd be a little rankled as well. It's demoralizing! If he told a significant audience things that sound plausible but aren't remotely true -- an accusation leveled by several Googlers in the past -- I'd have to fight the urge not to respond. It'd be one thing if he never spoke about Google again and people still gave him shit for it, but Michael likes to sneak in bits about his drama into comments that have nothing to do with his drama, as he has done here. I've half suspected for months that Michael is, as he even says here, just trolling Google employees into responding. Either way, the entire thing just reflects negatively upon him. That's the sort of thing that follows you in a career, and I'd hate to have the tide of a bunch of people turned against me because I made an ass out of myself on a Google mailing list. If I were doing due diligence on hiring him, the Hacker News threads would give me serious pause. I've read HN comments in the past wherein the point has been made that it reflects negatively on both sides, and I can't see that, particularly hearing the story from Xooglers that I know.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    Actually, I've been misunderstood. It's not Google that I tear to pieces at every opportunity, but the comically awful managers who watch terrorist attacks on TV and then think, "I'd like to do that to a company!" If Google cleaned house, it could be a great company and a cultural leader again. There are a lot of things I admire about Google, and I think highly of most of the engineers. 95% of the engineers I met there I would gladly work with again. In fact, I would recommend most people I know, if they get a Google offer, to take it. I would give them the gory details so they are prepared for what may happen, but if you join Google and end up on a good project that gives you visibility, it's a great place to work. Sure, there are unethical managers, but they aren't all bad. Why shouldn't they give the place a try? The whistleblowing that I engaged in was in response to (a) incidents of management doing things it knew were counterproductive, to costs in the millions of dollars, just to keep rank, and (b) upper management refusing to discipline people for doing things that were immensely unethical. What's amazing to me is that people will go to the mat to defend a huge company, when what they're actually doing is defending its rather abysmal management, which wouldn't do a thing for them. Let me say it like this: Google is a fine company in most ways. It has built some excellent products, and the internal engineering tools are great. There's an incredible amount of talent. However, becoming an Argentina for disgraced technical managers who think constructs like "calibration scores" are a good idea is not a good business move. If anyone is a friend of Google, it's me, because I've drawn light upon the managerial bloodsuckers that have been working to destroy the place.

jspthrowaway2 14y ago

The tale of Michael Church resonates throughout the entire valley. It certainly isn't limited to Google. I wish a Googler on his way out would leak the threads, honestly; I want to see if they live up to the tales. Context, for the uninitiated (grab a beer before searching): "site:news.ycombinator.com michaelochurch google"

anatoly 14y ago
Not limited to Google, not by a long shot. "Speaking personally, on every day that I'm blocked, I add college traditions that never existed, transpose digits of population figures or world records, and create articles on bullshit "folklore" that is often absurd; this is what Wikipedia will have to put up with if I am to be blocked from it. About 1 in 3 of my vandalisms survives for a year, and several have been reproduced on other articles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mike_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_so... etc. It's a gift that keeps on giving.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  You do realize that (a) most of those "sockpuppet" accounts are nonexistent (0 contributions) and (b) User:Isomorphic was kicked out of school for being caught drunk with his 15-year-old girlfriend, right? If not, then you don't know what you're talking about.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    I've learned quite a bit about the michaelochurch argument technique from this thread: Step 1: Make up stories about your enemy that nobody on the forum can verify. (Be it that your manager is a terrorist or that the Wikipedia admin who banned you is a child rapist.) Step 2: ??? Step 3: Post again with an even more grandiose tale. Why are you wasting your time on HN when you could be writing screenplays instead?
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
      I have no idea whether "User: Isomorphic" was a child rapist. He got in trouble for her being intoxicated, and for supplying alcohol to a minor, and so there were a lot of suspicions, but I don't know what was proven and, quite honestly, I don't want to even think about that. I prefer not to think about the sorts of people who do that stuff. The "terrorist" thing is getting taken way out of its original context. I was not comparing Google's problem executives to terrorists. I was saying that they enjoy destruction and take inspiration from it. I could have replaced "terrorist attacks" with "gruesome accidents". They're saboteurs, not terrorists.

Locke1689 14y ago

OK, that's enough of that. I was an intern during this bullshit. To anyone not "in the know" on this: there's nothing to know. There was a big pointless flame war on an internal listserv at Google over some objections that Michael had to how Google runs certain things. Googlers disagreed. I'll say that I disagreed with Michael, but the people on the other side are almost as responsible for letting themselves be sucked into such a stupid flame war. There is nothing interesting here. This is a Google soap opera. The rest of HN can comfortably go on with their lives without worrying.

jspthrowaway2 14y ago
I think this sort of thing repeats itself because Michael consistently blames Google for his departure, and has a tendency to show up "when summoned" (i.e, when Google is ever mentioned on Hacker News). If I worked somewhere and an ex-employee shit all over my employer at every opportunity, I'd be a little rankled as well. It's demoralizing! If he told a significant audience things that sound plausible but aren't remotely true -- an accusation leveled by several Googlers in the past -- I'd have to fight the urge not to respond. It'd be one thing if he never spoke about Google again and people still gave him shit for it, but Michael likes to sneak in bits about his drama into comments that have nothing to do with his drama, as he has done here. I've half suspected for months that Michael is, as he even says here, just trolling Google employees into responding. Either way, the entire thing just reflects negatively upon him. That's the sort of thing that follows you in a career, and I'd hate to have the tide of a bunch of people turned against me because I made an ass out of myself on a Google mailing list. If I were doing due diligence on hiring him, the Hacker News threads would give me serious pause. I've read HN comments in the past wherein the point has been made that it reflects negatively on both sides, and I can't see that, particularly hearing the story from Xooglers that I know.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Actually, I've been misunderstood. It's not Google that I tear to pieces at every opportunity, but the comically awful managers who watch terrorist attacks on TV and then think, "I'd like to do that to a company!" If Google cleaned house, it could be a great company and a cultural leader again. There are a lot of things I admire about Google, and I think highly of most of the engineers. 95% of the engineers I met there I would gladly work with again. In fact, I would recommend most people I know, if they get a Google offer, to take it. I would give them the gory details so they are prepared for what may happen, but if you join Google and end up on a good project that gives you visibility, it's a great place to work. Sure, there are unethical managers, but they aren't all bad. Why shouldn't they give the place a try? The whistleblowing that I engaged in was in response to (a) incidents of management doing things it knew were counterproductive, to costs in the millions of dollars, just to keep rank, and (b) upper management refusing to discipline people for doing things that were immensely unethical. What's amazing to me is that people will go to the mat to defend a huge company, when what they're actually doing is defending its rather abysmal management, which wouldn't do a thing for them. Let me say it like this: Google is a fine company in most ways. It has built some excellent products, and the internal engineering tools are great. There's an incredible amount of talent. However, becoming an Argentina for disgraced technical managers who think constructs like "calibration scores" are a good idea is not a good business move. If anyone is a friend of Google, it's me, because I've drawn light upon the managerial bloodsuckers that have been working to destroy the place.