I can understand the apparent moral disparity but from a "rule-administering" POV it may just be case of
* Action A occurs which is widely agreed to be misguided and reprehensible by YC and other forum members. However, Action A was not explicitly against any existing rule at the time, it was just super-dickish. Action A was probably immediately widely (if not universally) condemned by community members and YC. YC tells the person, don't do that ever again because now it's against the rules. Maybe they spanked that person in other ways, I don't know. I'm confident the idiot was the recipient of overwhelmingly negative social consequences from members of the private community.
* Another person is very angry about Action A and commits Action B by taking private forum events onto public social media. Action B is clearly, explicitly against an existing, very simple rule. Perhaps others have already been banned for violating this rule.
Despite our intuitions to the contrary, the stupidity and gross awfulness of Action A doesn't somehow offset the fact Action B is against an existing rule and Action A wasn't at the time it was committed. It's not wrong that YC enforced the clear rule against Action B. YC may even have had very mixed feelings about it.
To me, in the absence of further factual context, it seems uncharitable to reflexively pillory YC - even though I admit I feel tempted to do exactly that.
* Action A occurs which is widely agreed to be misguided and reprehensible by YC and other forum members. However, Action A was not explicitly against any existing rule at the time, it was just super-dickish. Action A was probably immediately widely (if not universally) condemned by community members and YC. YC tells the person, don't do that ever again because now it's against the rules. Maybe they spanked that person in other ways, I don't know. I'm confident the idiot was the recipient of overwhelmingly negative social consequences from members of the private community.
* Another person is very angry about Action A and commits Action B by taking private forum events onto public social media. Action B is clearly, explicitly against an existing, very simple rule. Perhaps others have already been banned for violating this rule.
Despite our intuitions to the contrary, the stupidity and gross awfulness of Action A doesn't somehow offset the fact Action B is against an existing rule and Action A wasn't at the time it was committed. It's not wrong that YC enforced the clear rule against Action B. YC may even have had very mixed feelings about it.
To me, in the absence of further factual context, it seems uncharitable to reflexively pillory YC - even though I admit I feel tempted to do exactly that.