Hacker News Reader

Comment by loceng | Hacker News Reader

I am more curious what their criteria is for adding someone to the list would be. Is it simply number of reports?

Do they give a warning to a person if they received 1 single report, and then if they receive more over the years then they get added?

Bad behaviour usually continues in part because a person believes they're getting away with it. If there's an early signal that they're in fact not getting away with it, then that would be beneficial to everyone for them to hear about it - the person harassing and the community at large.

View on HN

I suspect that YC's goal is to identify people who can be trusted with access to its ecosystem. There is a difference between someone who is on 'their good behavior' due to fear of being caught and someone inherently inclined to try and do the right thing. 'Character' is one way of describing that difference.

They're probably not going to tell you.

And that in and of itself is part of the problem of why these lists are hard to create and maintain.

The problem here has less to do about YC maintaining a list and more to do about the people reporting incidents to YC. Sorry, but people are ruthless, and I can see this being abused by founders who may feel vengeful they didn't get funded.

If the list was based on convicted sexual harassers, then so be it, but if it's based on feedback reviews, it'll be ripe for abuse. This is going to have tricky sociological impacts in the VC community that won't actually solve the problem.

The presumption here is that the list will be abused by founders more than the VCs it was explicitly created to enumerate do their position vis a vis founders.

I think that attitude is no small part of why this problem is as deeply rooted as it is.

That is: which is the greater harm? Founders getting abused by VCs without this list, or VCs getting accused by founders with it? Maybe it reflects my categories and biases more than reality, but I know which way I'm inclined to err, there.

Well founders discovered to be abusing such a list would instantly cut themselves off from future YC attention. Reputation extends to all the parties in any potential deal.

And I am 100% in favor of that outcome, in that case.

Of course they're hard to create and maintain, and of course they're more complicated than simply a count of the number of complaints.

The idea that there's something unusual about this is pretty silly. Businesses track the reputations of other businesses all the time. There's never any transparency in those lists, and people that fall on the wrong side of those lists never have any recourse.

Really, what we're arguing about here is the simple concept of "reputation". It's tough for message board nerds like us to hear this, but reputation in the real world is powerful, and it's not tracked in public Bugzillas. Ironically, the only upsetting thing that has happened here is that YC took the time to tell you about what they're doing.

This is special because someone could potentially get put on that list for sexual harassment. And a decent chunk of people here will never, in any practical sense, admit such a thing could occur. And even if such a thing could hypothetically occur, any consequences for the man involved should be delayed until after a jury trial.

Or (in the cases of sexual harassment or racial discrimination only) admit there could be behavior which may not rise to the level of criminality but still is a good reason to cause potential partners to shun you.

People can potentially get put on that list for all kinds of things, though, none of which they'd want to be on the list for. Consequences for investor behavior never wait for a jury trial. It's a reputation economy, how would that even work?

> admit there could be behavior which may not rise to the level of criminality

Very little bad investor rises to the level of criminality. And most bad investor behavior is still a good reason for yc to shun you.

> Businesses track the reputations of other businesses all the time.

I know of no business that regularly tracks the reputation of any _individuals_ in a database as part of it's regular business practice (the individual part is important) and that isn't part of it's model to disclose to involved parties. Uber would be a good example of someone that does this, but at least you can see a users rating at the time.

> The idea that there's something unusual about this is pretty silly.

I never said it was unusual. I think you're honing in on the wrong thing on this thread - which is the presumption that people are disgusted that these tactics happen. I more concerned that they are actively tracking it in a "review style" database and the data is only access by a select few (which is the presumption here).

> I know of no business that regularly tracks the reputation of any _individuals_ in a database as part of it's regular business practice (the individual part is important) and that isn't part of it's model to disclose to involved parties.

I bet recruiting firms do.

What about businesses tracking and reporting on former employees: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/10/28/499805238/episo...

The employees, apparently, don't usually get access to their U5.

Not only do venture capitalists do this kind of tracking, but they collude with each other to share informal blacklists and whitelists. There may be no group of people operating in American commerce with less of a moral high ground on this issue than venture capital firms.

What's more, there's not much you can do about it. Ultimately, they're not employers. They're investors. You can't coerce people into investing.

> each other to share informal blacklists and whitelists.

Exactly, informal. That's my point. The suggestion here isn't that informal lists exist, its that they are publicly announcing that it's being formalized. That's what makes this a big deal.

I still feel like you're not reading what I'm writing and keep trying to make a point responding to a wider discussion in this thread.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com