Have a link handy? I can't find it. My memory was he's said a lot of things like "we messed up" and "we could have handled it better". Nothing that says he personally is responsible.
I'm looking at the text I was talking about right now. You can find it, or take my word that I'm not making it up, but if you're going to debate this particular issue with me, I'm going to ask you to do your own homework. :)
It's just a pattern (not with you, but with message board arguments):
1. Person X stridently argues a position contradicted directly by the record, which they haven't taken the time to read.
2. Person Y rebuts X.
3. X demands a source from Y.
4. Y sources their rebuttal.
5. X recapitulates argument based on dubious, nitpicky reading of source, pretending they'd known the source was flawed all along.
The problem isn't that providing sources makes it harder to win arguments with lazy people, it's that it tends to introduce a second argument, over the interpretation of the source, as a smokescreen for instability of the first argument. It gets tedious.
I'm not saying that's what you did, just that I've been conditioned by message board nerdery to expect that to happen.
In this case, you can if you'd like just take my word for it that Ohanian took responsibility both for the reorg of AMAs and for the handling of the Taylor transition, not in a tea-leaf-reading way, but directly and overtly, prior to Yishan Wong's post, and in a public Reddit comment.
One of the joys of the web is being able to easily cite and read sources (it was the whole point of hypertext). Sure, we could all just discuss and debate by shooting from the hip with our opinions and recollections like we are at a wine-fueled dinner party but that's not why I come to Hacker News.
I wasn't trying to win or even have an argument with you. I was just trying to better my own understanding of the situation. I hadn't seen Alexis write that and couldn't find it despite spending way more time than I should be reading about reddit drama.
I don't know who you are or why I should take your word for it. I don't know why you'd expect me to take your word for it. That's something you do for people you know in person and trust, not strangers on the internet. That'd be a terrifying prospect if that's how we all did things online.
I, too, have noticed a pattern:
1. Person A writes something about a topic.
2. Person B writes about how bad something is which is related but orthogonal to the actual topic.
3. Persons C...Y have a heated debate of the orthogonal topic.
4. Person Z writes thoughtful comments about the topic but nobody reads it because the meta debate has drown out the actual topic.
A good name for it might be The Hacker News Comments Pattern. I'm not saying that's what you were doing.
I'm not following. What's the orthogonal (B) point?
(I seriously wasn't saying you were trying to bait me into giving you more ammunition for a stupid argument, but I'm pretty sure you really are implying that I introduced a bogus topic.)
https://reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cucye/an_old_te...
(It's also linked in the top reply to the parent post of your linked comment, but it is not visible in the context= view)