6 ms·

>Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual descriptions like “hug” or “backrub”) without consent or after a request to stop. [violates the co

by zxcvcxz 11y ago

>Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual descriptions like “hug” or “backrub”) without consent or after a request to stop. [violates the code of conduct] I can't tell if this is a joke or not.

voltagex_ 11y ago
Stuff like that doesn't belong on an issue tracker, whether it's invited or not. Bring back the mailing lists.
- UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
  > Bring back the mailing lists. Huh? So you both support the CoC but also want to "bring back" a form of communication which is entirely unmoderated? That's super contradictory.
  - voltagex_ 11y ago
    I should have been more explicit. A GitHub issue is for discussing a problem or idea for a particular repository. Hugs, virtual or otherwise seem to be completely tangential. Also, a mailing list can be one of the most strictly moderated forms of communication.
plonh 11y ago
In an employment environment, that is clearcut sexual harassment. The OCC is bringing some of that professionalism to open source communities. Why would it be a joke to ban annoying personally-targeted behaviors that are unrelated to the work product? I can't think of a case where discussing cuddling someone is appropriate for a Pull Request, mailing list, or IRC chat
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  hugs plonh
  - ipsin 11y ago
    Thanks, that's what I immediately thought. If you know someone or have formed any kind of relationship with them, that sort of "virtual hug" can be appropriate, but in other contexts it can be a pretty damn creepy way to push buttons. This is me violating your personal space.
    - skarap 11y ago
      But it's not the only possible way to violate someone's personal space (or be creepy) in an internet discussion. You could say "Last night had this strange dream where you were being eaten by lion" or "I think I'll make a poster with your photo and put it on my bedroom ceiling". The possibilities are endless. So you can either disallow all personal communication allowing only professional/on-topic stuff (maybe also making everyone use Esperanto so there are no misunderstandings) or you have real humans judging if someone is being a jerk based on their own understanding what "jerk" means. The later is how the real world was doing it for thousands of years (though this is also changing). When a child goes to school she/he is expected to behave in some normal way - parents are supposed to help create that behavior when upbringing the child. And if at school the child does something bad, they call the parents and then the parents are expected to explain the child why it is bad and make sure that doesn't happen again. Summoning the parents is (unfortunately) not an option here, but warning and banning people should work.
    - xiaoma 11y ago
      In Latino cultures, a hug would be completely appropriate. Why is it your culture that gets to decide? I find that attitude in itself offensive, especially considering we're talking about text. If you get creeped out by even a virtual hug and see more open people as violators, that's your problem, not theirs.
      - alextgordon 11y ago
        It's an obvious restatement of American christian values. Any physical contact is implicitly sexually charged, and so even a reference to it is objectionable. Of course if we're going to apply one religiously-inspired value system, then why not Saudi Arabian values?
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  In an employment environment, that is clearcut sexual harassment. Wait, really? I've never posted it myself, but textual descriptions like "[hug]" as a way of expressing gratitude or solidarity are common and mundane in plenty of communities. Now, sure, cluttering technical discussions with stuff like this isn't preferable. To call it "clearcut sexual harassment" is ludicrous and completely devalues the term in question.
  - jlarocco 11y ago
    > Wait, really? I've never posted it myself, but textual descriptions like "[hug]" as a way of expressing gratitude or solidarity are common and mundane in plenty of communities. I'd bet none of the communities you've seen it is a workplace.
    - tbrownaw 11y ago
      No, actual workplace interactions that have all the involved humans in the same physical location don't use textual descriptions. Instead you get the actual actions. Because people who spend that much time interacting tend to not stay in a Platonic Ideal "strictly professional" relationship, but become acquaintances or even friends. In which case it's that set of rules that apply, rather than the ivory tower set of rules based on said Platonic Ideal.
      - jlarocco 11y ago
        So your workplace doesn't use email, source control, instant message, group chat, or any other kind of electronic text communication? But in a way that just emphasizes why "[hug]" would be awkward and borderline inappropriate in a work setting. How often do coworkers physically hug at work? I'm not saying it would always be wrong to use "[hug]" (or even physically hug somebody at work), but I'd expect it to be far less common than in some other settings.
        bakabaka9 11y ago
        Nothing wrong with spontaneously hugging at work to relieve stress, assuming that all parties understand the purely Platonic meaning of the act (after all, we're grown-ups). I also tend to close my (less serious) working emails with stuff like "Love, kisses, [Name]" — and no one ever got offended by that, albeit the majority of my team would probably dislike some random bearded guy actually kissing them. Awkwardness is in the eye of the beholder. Working with adults (with no serious mental health issues) alleviates the need for a prohibitive, mildly disgusting CoC, like the one discussed in this thread.
- thomasfoster96 11y ago
  I for one read that part of the code of conduct and think of a few grey areas. I mean, it's not uncommon for people to write 'hugs' or something like that - surely that should be fine (assuming it's not wildly off topic)?
  - cmsj 11y ago
    I don't want you to hug me, or otherwise violate my personal space, thank you. I don't know you, it's completely inappropriate. Textual descriptions thereof also make me feel weird and uneasy. (And if you don't think that the words matter because it's just text in a browser, imagine that next time you make an angry/frustrated post, I reply "aww, boo hoo. ruffles your hair". You'd be fucking pissed. Words have meaning, that's why we use them)
- skarap 11y ago
  > In an employment environment, that is clearcut sexual harassment. I'll never understanf this stuff. In fact I don't even understand how hugging and giving people real backrubs is sexual harassment, let alone mentioning it in text!
thomasfoster96 11y ago
Yeah I don't get the 'textual' descriptions bit - and physical contact doesn't really apply to an online community. I suppose describing sexual contact is probably unwanted, but that's covered under the sexual harassment section.
- kzhahou 11y ago
  rubs thomasfoster06's shoulders aggressively Tell me to stop. I WON'T.
  - bakabaka9 11y ago
    This is hilarious! Without the CoC, who would have thought about rubbing someone else's body parts on HN.
pervycreeper 11y ago
What gets me is that they don't distinguish between description and simulation.
- cmsj 11y ago
  Your username is not inspiring confidence in your opinion on these matters ;)
teamhappy 11y ago
Can't wait to hear a legal professional's opinion vis-à-vis simulated back rubbing. But seriously, I'm hearing about this for the first time. Can anybody explain to me why this particular CoC is more controversial than any other random CoC?
- jp_sc 11y ago
  Juts read any or all of the many linked pull requests.
- iLoch 11y ago
  I'm probably going to burn myself here, we'll see. It seems to be written to protect minorities from majorities, as opposed to protecting everyone equally. For example they mention that they will not be handling complaints related to "reverse-isms" such as "reverse-racism" which is actually just racism. And this is coming from a CoC which is designed to be adopted by projects. Their argument is that "straight white males" can't be subject to racism or sexism simply because of their race and gender. This would obviously generate controversy and is generally a racist and sexist statement, which is likely why they put the project on hold - it could create a lot of negative news coverage for GitHub.
  - rndgermandude 11y ago
    To give a little context, it reads: > We will not act on complaints regarding: ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ This was taken from http://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ http://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ with one omission: > The Geek Feminism Anti-Abuse Team will not act on complaints regarding: ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ (because these things don’t exist) I'd agree that the reverse-isms do not exist. Sexism is sexism no matter who it affects. But it is not clear to me if the text should be interpreted this way...
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      So to be clear, if someone was talking about "male tears" or saying that all white people were [X], you believe that this code of conduct would be enforced against those people? Because I don't. If the CoC was genuinely designed to oppose discriminatory behavior against everyone, why would its authors be clinging so tightly to this bit of language that could be interpreted as greenlighting certain types of discrimination? It's unnecessary, so why not remove it?

by zxcvcxz 11y ago

voltagex_ 11y ago

Stuff like that doesn't belong on an issue tracker, whether it's invited or not. Bring back the mailing lists.

UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
> Bring back the mailing lists. Huh? So you both support the CoC but also want to "bring back" a form of communication which is entirely unmoderated? That's super contradictory.
- voltagex_ 11y ago
  I should have been more explicit. A GitHub issue is for discussing a problem or idea for a particular repository. Hugs, virtual or otherwise seem to be completely tangential. Also, a mailing list can be one of the most strictly moderated forms of communication.

plonh 11y ago

In an employment environment, that is clearcut sexual harassment. The OCC is bringing some of that professionalism to open source communities. Why would it be a joke to ban annoying personally-targeted behaviors that are unrelated to the work product? I can't think of a case where discussing cuddling someone is appropriate for a Pull Request, mailing list, or IRC chat

zxcvcxz 11y ago
hugs plonh
- ipsin 11y ago
  Thanks, that's what I immediately thought. If you know someone or have formed any kind of relationship with them, that sort of "virtual hug" can be appropriate, but in other contexts it can be a pretty damn creepy way to push buttons. This is me violating your personal space.
  - skarap 11y ago
    But it's not the only possible way to violate someone's personal space (or be creepy) in an internet discussion. You could say "Last night had this strange dream where you were being eaten by lion" or "I think I'll make a poster with your photo and put it on my bedroom ceiling". The possibilities are endless. So you can either disallow all personal communication allowing only professional/on-topic stuff (maybe also making everyone use Esperanto so there are no misunderstandings) or you have real humans judging if someone is being a jerk based on their own understanding what "jerk" means. The later is how the real world was doing it for thousands of years (though this is also changing). When a child goes to school she/he is expected to behave in some normal way - parents are supposed to help create that behavior when upbringing the child. And if at school the child does something bad, they call the parents and then the parents are expected to explain the child why it is bad and make sure that doesn't happen again. Summoning the parents is (unfortunately) not an option here, but warning and banning people should work.
  - xiaoma 11y ago
    In Latino cultures, a hug would be completely appropriate. Why is it your culture that gets to decide? I find that attitude in itself offensive, especially considering we're talking about text. If you get creeped out by even a virtual hug and see more open people as violators, that's your problem, not theirs.
    - alextgordon 11y ago
      It's an obvious restatement of American christian values. Any physical contact is implicitly sexually charged, and so even a reference to it is objectionable. Of course if we're going to apply one religiously-inspired value system, then why not Saudi Arabian values?
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
In an employment environment, that is clearcut sexual harassment. Wait, really? I've never posted it myself, but textual descriptions like "[hug]" as a way of expressing gratitude or solidarity are common and mundane in plenty of communities. Now, sure, cluttering technical discussions with stuff like this isn't preferable. To call it "clearcut sexual harassment" is ludicrous and completely devalues the term in question.
- jlarocco 11y ago
  > Wait, really? I've never posted it myself, but textual descriptions like "[hug]" as a way of expressing gratitude or solidarity are common and mundane in plenty of communities. I'd bet none of the communities you've seen it is a workplace.
  - tbrownaw 11y ago
    No, actual workplace interactions that have all the involved humans in the same physical location don't use textual descriptions. Instead you get the actual actions. Because people who spend that much time interacting tend to not stay in a Platonic Ideal "strictly professional" relationship, but become acquaintances or even friends. In which case it's that set of rules that apply, rather than the ivory tower set of rules based on said Platonic Ideal.
    - jlarocco 11y ago
      So your workplace doesn't use email, source control, instant message, group chat, or any other kind of electronic text communication? But in a way that just emphasizes why "[hug]" would be awkward and borderline inappropriate in a work setting. How often do coworkers physically hug at work? I'm not saying it would always be wrong to use "[hug]" (or even physically hug somebody at work), but I'd expect it to be far less common than in some other settings.
      - bakabaka9 11y ago
        Nothing wrong with spontaneously hugging at work to relieve stress, assuming that all parties understand the purely Platonic meaning of the act (after all, we're grown-ups). I also tend to close my (less serious) working emails with stuff like "Love, kisses, [Name]" — and no one ever got offended by that, albeit the majority of my team would probably dislike some random bearded guy actually kissing them. Awkwardness is in the eye of the beholder. Working with adults (with no serious mental health issues) alleviates the need for a prohibitive, mildly disgusting CoC, like the one discussed in this thread.
thomasfoster96 11y ago
I for one read that part of the code of conduct and think of a few grey areas. I mean, it's not uncommon for people to write 'hugs' or something like that - surely that should be fine (assuming it's not wildly off topic)?
- cmsj 11y ago
  I don't want you to hug me, or otherwise violate my personal space, thank you. I don't know you, it's completely inappropriate. Textual descriptions thereof also make me feel weird and uneasy. (And if you don't think that the words matter because it's just text in a browser, imagine that next time you make an angry/frustrated post, I reply "aww, boo hoo. ruffles your hair". You'd be fucking pissed. Words have meaning, that's why we use them)
skarap 11y ago
> In an employment environment, that is clearcut sexual harassment. I'll never understanf this stuff. In fact I don't even understand how hugging and giving people real backrubs is sexual harassment, let alone mentioning it in text!

thomasfoster96 11y ago

Yeah I don't get the 'textual' descriptions bit - and physical contact doesn't really apply to an online community. I suppose describing sexual contact is probably unwanted, but that's covered under the sexual harassment section.

kzhahou 11y ago
rubs thomasfoster06's shoulders aggressively Tell me to stop. I WON'T.
- bakabaka9 11y ago
  This is hilarious! Without the CoC, who would have thought about rubbing someone else's body parts on HN.

pervycreeper 11y ago

What gets me is that they don't distinguish between description and simulation.

cmsj 11y ago
Your username is not inspiring confidence in your opinion on these matters ;)

teamhappy 11y ago

Can't wait to hear a legal professional's opinion vis-à-vis simulated back rubbing. But seriously, I'm hearing about this for the first time. Can anybody explain to me why this particular CoC is more controversial than any other random CoC?

jp_sc 11y ago
Juts read any or all of the many linked pull requests.
iLoch 11y ago
I'm probably going to burn myself here, we'll see. It seems to be written to protect minorities from majorities, as opposed to protecting everyone equally. For example they mention that they will not be handling complaints related to "reverse-isms" such as "reverse-racism" which is actually just racism. And this is coming from a CoC which is designed to be adopted by projects. Their argument is that "straight white males" can't be subject to racism or sexism simply because of their race and gender. This would obviously generate controversy and is generally a racist and sexist statement, which is likely why they put the project on hold - it could create a lot of negative news coverage for GitHub.
- rndgermandude 11y ago
  To give a little context, it reads: > We will not act on complaints regarding: ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ This was taken from http://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ http://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ with one omission: > The Geek Feminism Anti-Abuse Team will not act on complaints regarding: ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ (because these things don’t exist) I'd agree that the reverse-isms do not exist. Sexism is sexism no matter who it affects. But it is not clear to me if the text should be interpreted this way...
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    So to be clear, if someone was talking about "male tears" or saying that all white people were [X], you believe that this code of conduct would be enforced against those people? Because I don't. If the CoC was genuinely designed to oppose discriminatory behavior against everyone, why would its authors be clinging so tightly to this bit of language that could be interpreted as greenlighting certain types of discrimination? It's unnecessary, so why not remove it?