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

Re:Here’s why Paul Graham (probably) owes me an apology. by groups on Sunday November 03, 2013 @10:49PM (#6666693)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Here’s why Paul Graham (probably) owes me an apology. by itbeho on Sunday November 03, 2013 @10:52PM (#6666711)

I agree. That sort of flagging leads to an echo chamber of like minded voices that excludes anyone with a reasoned, but differing view.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Here’s why Paul Graham (probably) owes me an apology. by nostrademons on Monday November 04, 2013 @01:28PM (#6670209)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]