6 ms·

Here’s why Paul Graham (probably) owes me an apology.

32 points by wtn 13y ago

groups 13y ago
As a casual browser this is the first I've heard of this. I don't know the accuracy of his claims. I'm curious about his sources and their reasons for not coming forth. That he doesn't cite them by name leads to me to think they choose to be anonymous. I'm not accusing them of something. I dislike the title. I need more information to decide for myself whether Paul Graham owes Michael O. Church an apology. I think Paul Graham has a hand, albeit limited, in deciding whether he owes Church an apology.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  I put the word probably in for a reason. I don't know, for sure, what is going on. It does seem, however, that there are variables determining comment placement other than age and karma. One commenter on my blog suggested the problem may be an abuse of the "flag" option (which is only supposed to be used on spammers).
  - groups 13y ago
    If he rigged the system the way you say, I'll be angry on your behalf. With that said, I'll nitpick: Paul Graham can respond to your post however he wants. He _could_ simply say, "I don't care." You _want_ an apology because you _think_ you've been wronged. A blog post entitled, "I want an apology from Paul Graham" sounds whiny--I get it. Still, from where I'm sitting the title, even with the "probably" proviso, sounds like a power-grab that denies Paul Graham's ability to give whatever response he wants to you. Also it looks linkbaity to me[1]. [1] I dislike linkbaity titles. I don't deny their effectiveness; I clicked the link! disclaimer: I teach public speaking professionally, so these kinds of less-than-explicitly-conscious word choices stick out to me. Edited to emphasize that I agree with the spirit of his post, and that I'm nitpicking because I enjoy picking nits.
benologist 13y ago
You probably won an automated penalty - it's easy to imagine your comments getting lots of downvotes even if they're overall +x.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  If merely controversial (as opposed to low-quality) posts lead to a personal penalty that applies to all of one's comments, then that's a seriously fucked-up policy. Offending no one means you are saying nothing.
  - benologist 13y ago
    'Consistently controversial' might be more accurate! The up/down vote patterns are probably similar to 'top comment snark', I'm sure I read in the last month or two there was new stuff added to deal with that. Easy way to find out - info@ycombinator.com.
michaelochurch 13y ago
More evidence. At +12 and 1-hour in age, this thread (which I did not submit) isn't even in the top 120, whereas other less successful threads (Sunday nights are slow) are in the top 30. The first time my blog was penalized by HN (to my knowledge) was related to this post, "Don't waste your time in crappy startup jobs": http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/dont-waste-your-time-in-crappy-startup-jobs/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/dont-waste-yo...
- tptacek 13y ago
  It probably got flagged. I flagged it, for instance. It's an embarrassment.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- wglb 13y ago
  I flagged this entry, to be honest. Ranting is one thing. This went further. The sense of entitlement pushed it over the edge for me.
adastra 13y ago
I don't think Paul Graham owes Michael O Church a damn thing. PG has always been clear that he built this site as a place for a certain type of reasoned discourse with a certain tone. And he enforces that as he pleases, as he should. He did, after all, build this place with his own two hands and he pays for it out of his own pocket. It wouldn't surprise me at all if people have a secret "tone score" or similar that is assigned by moderators every time they make a nasty comment. And if that is the case, looking back on Church's comments it should be pretty clear that he'd have racked up one of the highest (lowest?) tone scores on HN. His comments are full of bitterness and hatred and scorn.
- groups 13y ago
  I agree that who-owes-what is negotiated by the parties and not objectively pre-determined, and that we, as commenters, have a hand in deciding who-owes-what. I ask you: would you want to secretly fail a secret grading criterion because something about you (tone, content (Church says it's content-based discrimination), et cetera) is not acceptable to a moderator? Crucial points are: secret failing and secret grading. I wouldn't; I'd value the feedback, or get the heck out of there.
  - itbeho 13y ago
    I agree. That sort of flagging leads to an echo chamber of like minded voices that excludes anyone with a reasoned, but differing view.
    - nostrademons 13y ago
      But that's what real-life is like. In most social situations, people are not going to tell you what they hate about you. This is as uncomfortable for them as it is for you. As someone who was once friendless and unpopular, I agree that this is crazily frustrating. But it is the way it is for a reason; it is rarely a productive or pleasant use of time for someone to tell someone else why he sucks. If you're on the friendless and unpopular side, it's up to you to observe carefully and watch why some people are popular and some are unpopular.

32 points by wtn 13y ago

As a casual browser this is the first I've heard of this. I don't know the accuracy of his claims. I'm curious about his sources and their reasons for not coming forth. That he doesn't cite them by name leads to me to think they choose to be anonymous. I'm not accusing them of something. I dislike the title. I need more information to decide for myself whether Paul Graham owes Michael O. Church an apology. I think Paul Graham has a hand, albeit limited, in deciding whether he owes Church an apology.

michaelochurch 13y ago
I put the word probably in for a reason. I don't know, for sure, what is going on. It does seem, however, that there are variables determining comment placement other than age and karma. One commenter on my blog suggested the problem may be an abuse of the "flag" option (which is only supposed to be used on spammers).
- groups 13y ago
  If he rigged the system the way you say, I'll be angry on your behalf. With that said, I'll nitpick: Paul Graham can respond to your post however he wants. He _could_ simply say, "I don't care." You _want_ an apology because you _think_ you've been wronged. A blog post entitled, "I want an apology from Paul Graham" sounds whiny--I get it. Still, from where I'm sitting the title, even with the "probably" proviso, sounds like a power-grab that denies Paul Graham's ability to give whatever response he wants to you. Also it looks linkbaity to me[1]. [1] I dislike linkbaity titles. I don't deny their effectiveness; I clicked the link! disclaimer: I teach public speaking professionally, so these kinds of less-than-explicitly-conscious word choices stick out to me. Edited to emphasize that I agree with the spirit of his post, and that I'm nitpicking because I enjoy picking nits.

benologist 13y ago

You probably won an automated penalty - it's easy to imagine your comments getting lots of downvotes even if they're overall +x.

michaelochurch 13y ago
If merely controversial (as opposed to low-quality) posts lead to a personal penalty that applies to all of one's comments, then that's a seriously fucked-up policy. Offending no one means you are saying nothing.
- benologist 13y ago
  'Consistently controversial' might be more accurate! The up/down vote patterns are probably similar to 'top comment snark', I'm sure I read in the last month or two there was new stuff added to deal with that. Easy way to find out - info@ycombinator.com.

michaelochurch 13y ago

More evidence. At +12 and 1-hour in age, this thread (which I did not submit) isn't even in the top 120, whereas other less successful threads (Sunday nights are slow) are in the top 30. The first time my blog was penalized by HN (to my knowledge) was related to this post, "Don't waste your time in crappy startup jobs": http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/dont-waste-your-time-in-crappy-startup-jobs/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/dont-waste-yo...

tptacek 13y ago
It probably got flagged. I flagged it, for instance. It's an embarrassment.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
wglb 13y ago
I flagged this entry, to be honest. Ranting is one thing. This went further. The sense of entitlement pushed it over the edge for me.

adastra 13y ago

I don't think Paul Graham owes Michael O Church a damn thing. PG has always been clear that he built this site as a place for a certain type of reasoned discourse with a certain tone. And he enforces that as he pleases, as he should. He did, after all, build this place with his own two hands and he pays for it out of his own pocket. It wouldn't surprise me at all if people have a secret "tone score" or similar that is assigned by moderators every time they make a nasty comment. And if that is the case, looking back on Church's comments it should be pretty clear that he'd have racked up one of the highest (lowest?) tone scores on HN. His comments are full of bitterness and hatred and scorn.

groups 13y ago
I agree that who-owes-what is negotiated by the parties and not objectively pre-determined, and that we, as commenters, have a hand in deciding who-owes-what. I ask you: would you want to secretly fail a secret grading criterion because something about you (tone, content (Church says it's content-based discrimination), et cetera) is not acceptable to a moderator? Crucial points are: secret failing and secret grading. I wouldn't; I'd value the feedback, or get the heck out of there.
- itbeho 13y ago
  I agree. That sort of flagging leads to an echo chamber of like minded voices that excludes anyone with a reasoned, but differing view.
  - nostrademons 13y ago
    But that's what real-life is like. In most social situations, people are not going to tell you what they hate about you. This is as uncomfortable for them as it is for you. As someone who was once friendless and unpopular, I agree that this is crazily frustrating. But it is the way it is for a reason; it is rarely a productive or pleasant use of time for someone to tell someone else why he sucks. If you're on the friendless and unpopular side, it's up to you to observe carefully and watch why some people are popular and some are unpopular.