This is exactly what strikes me as odd about the whole thing. 'dang has made an impressive effort to keep everything on HN as transparent as possible, and this explanation just screamed inconsistency.

Were the real reason, as stated here, published the first time, I wouldn't even have bothered to comment.

And, YC, you can be inconsistent. That's fine with me.

But when you're inconsistent, you should bear a special obligation to be generous and charitable to the people you're disadvantaging. YC didn't live up to that obligation here.

Sounds to me like they were generous, with their time. Kevin called him and they had a conversation... that's more than any other VC will do.

"Asshole VC associate" is not the bar YC is trying to clear.

I was an applicant and I understood from the start that the votes would influence it but that YCF would make the final call. It was clear to me before I applied that YCF would have a final say. I'm sorry it's confusing you.

What are you talking about? They promised a certain criteria, disqualified someone who appeared to win by it (minus the vote boost maybe), claimed it for one set of reasons, it looked like it was for worse reasons, half-ass admitted that later, and still aren't fully owning up to it now or presenting it honestly for future participants in these things. At least, that's how I read tptacek's comments throughout thread.

I was about to even agree with one saying the evidence looked fishy given spotting or countering subversive behavior is kind of my thing. Then, kevin's comment appeared just as I was about to write mine to confirm opposition angle a lot.

Full disclosure: First time I've ever found out who idlewords is, I don't use that product, probably didn't give it a vote, I give mixed reviews of Silicon Valley politics/VC's, and say whatever I think facts lead to regardless of blowback. As in, near zero bias in this and people's concerns are still obvious to me.

You misunderstand. There was a time when I thought we might be #2, and I thought, 'I think that gives us a good chance'. I didn't think, 'therefore they have to pick us'. They were clear about that.

tptacek's comment said a lot more than "he had more votes." Matter of fact, it didn't mention that directly at all. One would have to read his other comments to get context. That's what context I had in mind when trying to interpret your comment.

Now, if this is your whole argument, then I don't disagree with it. Yet, tptacek's reply to you is still true based on what's in the comment you replied to and the others. Your counter doesn't apply to what he wrote.

This comment has nothing to do with mine.

It has everything to do with it because I'm saying that I understood, everyone understood going in, that it was not a popularity contest.

If Pinboard had no votes, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It was specifically because it had the most votes that there was any expectation that it might be chosen. But it was always Kevin's prerogative to say no, and he did. They were clear that it is an experiment, and that we would figure things out as we go. I don't see how you can accuse "changing the rules". There were no set rules.

You would be dishonest if you tried to say that Pinboard didn't initially approach this as a funny/protest entry ("Let's make YC great again"). Whether he changed later is irrelevant. Whether some voted for Pinboard because they liked it is irrelevant. Others voted for it for it in the same spirit as he entered it, and suddenly (whether he intended it or not) you have the Wonka Factory's doors open and a bunch of people finding it fun (and maybe cathartic) to act like Veruca Salt. Don't blame Kevin or Dan, blame Maciej.