Hacker News Reader

Your piece addresses what you claim to be a basic "unfairness": You (if it's really you) say someone "didn't treat me as a friend".

Most of the comments are reflecting on whether it really was or wasn't unfair.

So I'd say it's also an interesting worldview that you make a claim about fairness and then dismissed any conversation about fairness (the topic _you brought up_) with a glib statement asserting that anyone who ponders this as being "blind to any emotional" concerns.

The Hacker News comment fills in a missing piece for me: why did Carl lose his shit on him? That part was just a one sided story so there were gaps for me.

Seeing how he speaks to a new community made it all crystal clear. I’ve encountered that type of demeanor quite often, which is burying nonetheless-obvious and heaping contempt under “it was particularly enjoyable” smarm and a fake smile. Even if unintended, wow, what a way to undermine the intended emotional payload of the story by demonstrating unreliable narration and self-awareness, as well as some far less favorable aspects of personality and empathy.

I feel for the guy, that situation is tough, but it’s making more sense now that I’m waking up to act 2 (particularly Mojang’s willingness to let it lie, another question I had).

Julian, if you read this, I don’t know that your words are having the effect you’re hoping for, and obviously pushing for. I think you’re unconsciously making the case that distance from you was probably healthy for all involved. I see a lot of discussion about whether HN is emotionally intelligent, and it might be true that folks here tend to focus on legalisms (it is, after all, primarily engineers), but take it from an outsider here: HN is on the mark in this case and I’d be more suspicious of Reddit’s take if I were you.

> I’ve encountered that type of demeanor quite often, which is burying nonetheless-obvious and heaping contempt under “it was particularly enjoyable” smarm and a fake smile.

Or maybe it really was enjoyable for him to read someone else's point of view? If someone disagrees with you, down to the very core beliefs that serve as foundation of your world, I don't think there is much of a better way to try to handle the situation.

I think you (and some commenters) are missing the reason on HN’s fixation on the legal and corporate issue, so I should spell it out: the reason people in corporate follow those legal methods is to NOT screwing everyone. Emotion is good and all, but does not work at scale of more than half a dozen people. You can’t decide the best course of action that will benefit everyone based on your judgment of their emotions. And actually in this case it is even simpler: everyone at Mojang will be happy with the buyout, so the singular focus at the time would be to release the game (in first part), or to get bought by Microsoft.

Even if Carl and Notch considered you their best friend, at the point of the Microsoft buyout, they will still have to a) Keep their mouth shut and can’t tell you about that (yes, it was leaked, but they might still can’t talk about it) and b) force you to sign the paperwork. The alternative is risk letting the deal falling through, hurting everyone involved, owners or employees.

It’s not heartless or emotional-less, just purely ultilitarian. Anyone who has to deal with management of some capacity will have to think of the same sort. Carl might have thought a lot about emotion and friendship, but it’s not just yours. He has to make sure everyone’s are considered too. It just happened your priority is different

HN is not the place to expect emotional intelligence. Reading your story was sad, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding that happened. I hope releasing your poem gives you the peace you need.

Maybe you didn't intend to imply this, but I don't think it's primarily a lack of emotional intelligence on HN, but more so that logic perspectives is what people expect/want from this particular community.

Seems reasonable to me that there would be times/places where the balance between emotional and logic leans one way or the other. I've certainly seen places where things leaned greatly towards emotional to large positive effect, I think HN is a logical counter-part to that.

You went on a rant impugning the characters of the other people involved and making yourself the victim. All that really happened is you got a good deal for a bit of writing, $20k. You wish you had asked for more. Everyone here called your bullshit. Now you wish people just saw your attack on the other people as art or an emotional journey or whatever other nonsense. If you want to make art, then make art. But if you write an attack on other people’s actions, then expect people to be critical.

I'd hardly call that an attack. It's emotional and raw, and definitely not vindictive. I really enjoyed the honest writing. All too often people hide their feelings so they don't get misunderstood or misrepresented.

I think it's very interesting so many people in this comment thread are so quick to point out that 20k is a fair, or even good, price for writing the end poem, but don't engage with the fact that $1800000k might be an excessive amount for one person to earn for making a video game.

The multiples and orders of magnitude of difference in the payouts are what make the decisions that the various people make interesting and complicated. The author did what he needed to do to make you feel those orders of magnitude in difference.

Also it is very funny to think that somebody who has 1.8 billion dollars is not greedy. I don't think that is impugning their character to point out something obvious.

The exchange value of something is what people are willing to pay for it.

Well first of all it seems like (a) the author of the poem didn't explicitly agree to sell it at the price and (b) people are often willing to pay unfair prices for things in times of duress (IE... how much would you pay for a bottle of water if you were dying of thirst?).

And either way, the author isn't making a legal or moral argument one way or the other. He's just telling a story about his emotional response to this complicated and unique situation. The fact that the people on the other side of the story effectively have infinite wealth and still made the decisions they did is important to the story! It makes it easier for us to understand their motivations. He's a writer who wrote a story, it's not a wikipedia entry.

Yes he did. Do you people read the article before arguing about what’s in it? “and so I said, OK, I’ll take whatever the first thing you offered was.”

Just because it’s his story doesn’t mean he can’t be immature and wrong in it.

I left this as general comment and I feel it's relevant here:

> Reading the post and then HN comments makes me realize the average HN user lacks a lot of emotional intelligence.

> People are criticizing the post based on the cold hard mistakes the author made while completely glossing over the emotional introspection the author went through to acknowledge all their mistakes and finally close this chapter of their lives.

> Stop treating this post like you are code reviewing a PR.

I suppose it is to be somewhat expected from the target audience of HN to fixate on the logical parts and completely ignore the artistic and emotional parts, but in this case that means they are ignoring the whole point of your post.

Yes and no. It’s important to reserve a tiny handhold on emotional takes because sometimes it’s raw and emotional for underhanded reasons. I think the comment you’re replying to, wherein active spin was attempted to refocus on the emotional part over the legal part, suggests it’s a nonzero possibility. Some parts of the essay raised the idea for me and I had to work hard to dismiss them, to pay him the ultimate respect of reading it all (every word).

It comes across like the author is aware the feelings argument is stronger than the legal one. He likes Reddit’s take because the feelings were engaged. He quite clearly hates this forum’s because it asks questions of the situation he’d prefer to leave alone. Again, that’s how it comes across.

If you don’t keep such a handhold you’re more easily manipulated, and in this cold light of day and particularly that comment, I can’t argue against that idea as much as I would have last night. I do agree with you that we could all do with a bit more empathy, but keep your wits, all I’m saying.

I love your story and it resonates with situations I've been in, thank you.

In the Hacker News language game I think this comment delivered without sarcasm would be much better received.

> I particularly enjoyed the comments where blokes (so many blokes!) got angry at me for even HAVING emotions about this situation, when the law seemed, to them, to make such emotions invalid.

You write a several thousand word screed (mostly about money), talk about payouts to Mojang staff and Notch's house, post a donation link under the heading "THIS IS WHERE YOU GET TO SAVE MY LIFE", and then come here with pointed comments about people disregarding your "emotions" in this situation because there isn't unanimous agreement on your own "rightness" in this situation

I don't really need to comment on any of this, because anyone with eyes can see it for what it is

> I don't really need to comment on any of this

And, yet, here we are...

I appreciated your writeup. I have to admit I had never read the end text before today and I really like what you made. Hope your creativity continues to flourish.

Have you heard of the Hedonic adaptation? Your story fits it very well.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_adaptation

Rejecting their offer wasn't the one true path for you to feel happiness and love. It was actually one of many outcomes that you are able to adapt to for feeling happy and loved.

Emotions: disgusted

Justification: in your piece you avoid mentioning that copyright can be merely licensed, not transferred, hiding this by portraying yourself as a naive artist who does not understand the law.

Dream Sequencer System Offline

I am happy you are in a better head space. The fact you can enjoy reading internet comments is a great testament to that!

The zeitgeist of our times is categorization, valuation, discrimination... This is good or bad, valid or invalid. There is very little space for the flaws of the real world. To divide the world so clearly, violence is necessary. Be the clinical wording of the surgeon or the hate of the mob...

There is so much hate on the internet; Remember it is not personal, they do not know you.

Thanks for writing that post. If nothing else it's a riveting story.

Hi Julian,

Thank you for your reply and for taking the time to read our comments. We appreciate your perspective and the insight you have provided on the situation.

However, I must say that your message feels very confrontational and pointy, and dismissive of the legal aspects of the situation. While we understand that the emotional and artistic aspects are important, the legalities of the situation must also be considered and discussed.

I hope that you can understand our perspective and engage with us on the legal aspects of the situation as well.

Please stop.