[code_pockets]

>Submitting an objective, or factual story is fine, but when the sole intention is to tarnish the reputation, then the "bury hatchet" comes out.

Such is the reason HN thrives. Though experience has led me to reason that such behaviour is applied to anyone who sets out to tarnish someone else's reputation. Not only YC people/startups.

>I've even seen high karma members get completely banned because of submissions about Curebit and AirBnB.

Karma is not a good indicator of anything. One can easily gather "karma" by writing useless blog posts that rhyme with the general schools of thought (or thought patterns). I think karma is used here as a tool to promote valuable links that add to the conversation, rather than a tool that measures social hierarchy. Karma does not measure a poster, but the post itself. If you post anything that violates the rules (which are sensible and permissive), then you have proved, without a doubt, that you original intentions were not inline with the "belief" behind HN (information that are interesting to hackers (though inflamatory posts are not interesting)).

>When you come to one persons house, you can't argue if some ground rules are set.

We are also born with gravity wrecking havoc around the universe. What good does bad-mouthing gravity do? =)

[chrisacky]

> Karma is not a good indicator of anything.

I meant that just to underscore the point that (from my observations) PG doesn't care if you have been a long standing community member at HN. I perhaps should of said account age in the many years.

And I agree with this perspective. People who from the first line in their article set out with the intention of just sensationalizing some innocuous or accidental lapse in judgment by a startup clearly are just doing it:

>) For their own gain

>) Aren't trying to create objective discussion

>) Just want to disrupt the startups positive vibe by publishing damaging news about them.

Some things are clearly in the public interest... and should be written about, but some times I've read stories whcih are just beating a horse while it's down, and has been totally unneccessary. I totally disagreed with the way DHH handled the Curebit episode. Curebit were clearly wrong (by direct linking to assets), but the obsenities that he was throwing around so willfully on Twitter just made him appear like a kid who had had his candy stolen.

[code_pockets]

>I meant that just to underscore the point that (from my observations) PG doesn't care if you have been a long standing community member at HN.

I agree with your point. A man who has written such a collection of essays cannot be a hypocrate. PG is one of the few authors that have provided insight into my own self.

But that has consequences for him: I hold him to the highest of moral standards and expect him to adhere to them. I think he will not fail to meet them.