[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.