[jakobegger]

Why do you keep bugging someone when they obviously do not want you to contact them?

Blocking you is a way of saying "Leave me alone!"

Not replying to direct messages or emails is a way of saying "Leave me alone!"

Nobody needs to explain why they want to be left alone.

Maybe stop thinking about yourself, and just accept that the people behind the twitter handles just don't want you to contact them anymore for whatever reason.

[ItsMe000001]

What you say is true if it was a private person. This is about a conference that seems to be important professionally to that person.

They even replied to him - why not just say WHY and get it over with once and for all? This is just stupid, not (just) unprofessional. If they could at least point to "we already told you, now get lost" - but never giving a reason... it's not like they could be sued (first, Europe, second, just a Twitter block), so the usual (at least understandable) justifications e.g. when not giving reasons when not hiring someone don't apply.

[abcd_f]

Perhaps all his 30 speech proposals were completely inane and he's been viewed by organizers as that spammy fellow in late stages Dunning–Kruger syndrome? If that's the case, then muting communications is the least offensive option and it is entirely appropriate. However it does require the other side to be able to take a hint.

[ItsMe000001]

Perhaps - then tell him.

The reason does not matter (especially since we are unlikely to hear it from anyone), what matters is that they refuse to say what it is. "Effort" is not an excuse either since they even replied to him - but with something unprofessional while still leaving out the reason for no good reason that I can think of. You can even mask it behind a more fuzzy reason if you think the specific reason is not good enough to be made public, but they did not even make the attempt.

> then muting communications is the least offensive option

Only after telling him. Something, anything - they could even make up a polite "official" reason and keep the truth for themselves as we humans often do, which can actually be perfectly okay. But stubbornly refusing to give any reason at all... no, that's not okay. It would be if it was between individuals, but not for a professional organization, especially one that the person may not be able to ignore even if they wanted to, since he seems to find them a valuable contribution for his professional life.

[beachy]

Disagree.

A while ago I experimented with giving job applicants honest feedback on why they were unsuccessful - not just the old platitudes like"there were stronger candidates".

Big mistake. When you reject people, they really really want to dig in, know why and then refute or try to overturn that.

[slavik81]

The platitude lacks detail, but you're still giving truthful feedback. Frankly, that's not bad. I can't tell you it's actually worthwhile for you to do anything more, but thank you for trying.

I graduated in EE and really wanted to go into software. The manufacturing and construction jobs I had worked in over the summers had convinced me that I did not want to be drawing wiring diagrams all day.

I failed the interviews for the first few software development jobs I applied to. After one I thought had gone well, I emailed the hiring manager to ask for feedback. He told me that my technicals were ok for a new grad, but that I fell short on the social side. That was valuable feedback. I had been very nervous and awkward. It gave me the confidence that I actually had the talent to pass an interview with a little more practice. I sent that guy a thank you note, and a few months later I found my dream job in software.

Maybe I would have passed the later interview anyways. Probably. But if not, my life would be completely different today. Just after I got the offer letter for the software job, one of those construction companies asked me to come in for an interview...

Thank you for trying. It doesn't always pay off, but it can make a difference. Giving that sort of feedback is all risk and no reward, so I really appreciate that you gave it a shot.

[pdimitar]

> When you reject people, they really really want to dig in, know why and then refute or try to overturn that.

That is 101% true. However, when you give feedback you can also politely say that it is not open for a debate.

"We found you lacking in X, Y and Z. We are not interested in advancing our communication. All the best and goodbye."

So IMO just give feedback once and never reply again. If somebody is persistent, block them. Then you would in your full right.

Being fully silent without a single message however is not okay.

[_Codemonkeyism]

Been there ;-)

[ItsMe000001]

Did you read my comment? I already addressed that point, twice, two different aspects.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17440121

> it's not like they could be sued (first, Europe, second, just a Twitter block), so the usual (at least understandable) justifications e.g. when not giving reasons when not hiring someone don't apply.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17440185 (all of it, especially the 2nd half)

I would appreciate if you took what the commenter wrote into consideration when you respond. You don't need to change the topic and come up with something completely different - here, job rejections (which I even already mention).

[PhasmaFelis]

Then simply telling him that would have been just as easy as the response they sent, and no ruder.

[_Codemonkeyism]

They probably have dozens of times.

[PhasmaFelis]

Do you have a reason to assume that the poster is outright lying? I mean, I can't actually prove that anything in the article really happened, but it seems odd to just assume that it's false.

[loup-vaillant]

I bet the reason for the ban wasn't even recorded.

[oytis]

Not to argue if ghosting is a morally appropriate way of communication in one's personal life, but it was not about someone's personal account, rather of one of a professional conference. It is definitely not how one should do their business communications.

[BonoboIO]

I think this is not a private or personal thing, this just unprofessional handling of an yet unclear situation.

Like beeing conficted without a trial (of course this is just a business relationship between him and the conference).

Imagine that Hacker News would ban your account jakobegger, no explanation, no way to get informations why or what you did wrong. Would you just accept this as just "leave me alone"?

[goldenkey]

The reason we respect HN and its respective admins, is because they explain their decisions quite openly and transparently, and will even discuss issues over email. I was actually banned a few years ago because I was being a negative, hateful, POS due to some events in my life combined with clouded judgment. But I appealed, and began posting better comments that were more in line with what one would expect from a discussion forum for positivity (startups) and rationalism (tech.) I'm sure there are many others like me who the admins treated quite fairly and with respect. "Silent treatment" is a last resort, in all other cases it is just a weak and impotent thing to do.

[PhasmaFelis]

> The reason we respect HN and its respective admins, is because they explain their decisions quite openly and transparently

...Except when they shadowban people. (Who aren't obviously spammers or dedicated trolls.)

[goldenkey]

Shadowban is mostly a tool to deal with idiots constantly posting attention-seeking comments. If someone isn't smart enough to realize their comments are not being replied to, they aren't the kind of person you really want to contend with. Shadowban deals with people who post comments where the intent is to rouse, not to converse. So much of the time, they don't expect replies, and thus they can continue to post their crap to themselves, and only themselves. I don't think shadowban is polite or nice but it is effective.

[dang]

Those are indeed the categories that we shadowban, so if you know of exceptions I'd like to see them.

[tpush]

> Imagine that Hacker News would ban your account jakobegger, no explanation, no way to get informations why or what you did wrong. Would you just accept this as just "leave me alone"?

I mean, they literally do this in the from of shadow banning.

[dang]

That's not accurate. Shadow-banning is rare to begin with (reserved for spammers, serial trolls, and other forms of abuse), and even when we do it it's always possible for people to get information by emailing us. I can think of a couple exceptions to that but they've all been preceded by long email chains.

If an account has been posting to HN for a while and hasn't been banned under other guises, we always tell them when we're banning them, and nearly always after multiple warnings.

[hycaria]

I doubt they'd do it without warning you before hand to comply to the guidelines.

[thinkingemote]

The thought experiment in the GP was what if they didn't

[dangerface]

Blocking you is a way of saying "Leave me alone!"

Thats an assumption it could have been a mistake, it could have been temporary, it could have been any number of reasons. Maybe there is a good reason they blocked you, if you knew this reason maybe you could fix it or accept your differences and move on, both good social outcomes for both parties.

You are being anti-social by assuming other people actions. You also assume that the other persons action was also anti-social. You then assume that doing the social thing and talking to the person in a reasonable manor will be treated as unreasonable and anti-social (this makes sense if you think they are anti-social). So you don't ask, their anti-social behaviour is never questioned and they carry on with it. They probably blocked you for a reason, you were being anti-social but since you never questioned that reason you too will carry on with it.

This anti-social behaviour encourages itself.

[michaelmrose]

Adults can verbalize or type the words leave me alone