

Here’s why Paul Graham (probably) owes me an apology. - wtn
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/heres-why-paul-graham-probably-owes-me-an-apology/

======
adastra
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
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
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
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.

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

~~~
michaelochurch
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
'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.

------
groups
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
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
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.

------
michaelochurch
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-
yo...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/dont-waste-your-time-in-
crappy-startup-jobs/)

~~~
tptacek
It probably got flagged. I flagged it, for instance. It's an embarrassment.

