4 ms·

I think we agree that is the intention. However it's more like putting up a sign on a hotel saying "Murder and mayhem will not be tolerated." If there is a rea

by PieterH 11y ago

I think we agree that is the intention. However it's more like putting up a sign on a hotel saying "Murder and mayhem will not be tolerated." If there is a real risk of murder and mayhem, the sign needs to read, "If someone tries to murder you, please call 911!" Harassment does not simple "take place" and that's the point. Participants enter zones of vulnerability caused by distance from home, separation from friends, alcohol, the need to socialize, etc. This draws in predators. The organizers need to understand that, and guard against it. The term "code of conduct" is itself a problem as it strongly suggests "behave or else!" while talking to the entire audience. Do you have a better explanation for the antagonism many feel (and I personally used to feel) towards codes of conduct?

DasIch 11y ago
CoC do explain who to contact for help, the equivalent to 911, if you will.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
peteretep 11y ago
> However it's more like putting up a sign on a hotel > saying "Murder and mayhem will not be tolerated." I have previously held that view, but now think that was mostly a function of my white male privilege. If you go to a hotel proprietor and report murder and mayhew, you have a reasonable expectation that it will be dealt with properly. Many people apparently did not have this expectation of technical conferences, based on their experiences. Many people like myself - who hadn't had those experiences - assumed it was so obvious it didn't need saying. > This draws in predators I think that's right, but is a massive simplification. I think good people can act in ways that make other people feel uncomfortable, without meaning to, and that also needs some consideration. > The term "code of conduct" is itself a problem as it > strongly suggests "behave or else!" Really? To me it says "these are our expectations". > Do you have a better explanation for the antagonism > many feel (and I personally used to feel) towards > codes of conduct? I think many men growing up have negative formative experiences with certain women who have considerably more social power than them (for simplicity: the popular girls!) exerting it to make them feel ashamed. They see potential for what they see as a safe space being used against them. They have a genuine fear of their well-intentioned actions being used to label them as a bad person. They see the Adria Richards and Pycon examples as a realization of their worst fears in this area.
- PieterH 11y ago
  Honestly, accidental discomfort is part of being grown up. To try to regulate that is IMO both patronizing and counter productive. We need some level of friction to socialize. A CoC that lets well-meant actions become crimes is worse than no CoC at all. I explain this in my article: certain people will use poorly-designed tools to harass. The key to solving this mess is, and I stick by it, to separate accidental clumsiness from predatory behavior. There is no grey overlap. Once you separate these two, you can teach people to trust each other much more, while being properly cynical of the small slice of predators. This isn't hypothesis: we use this approach in our open source communities to encourage and thrive on honest mistake while watching for, and blocking predatory actions. I may add a piece to the protocol along the lines of, "Tolerance means accepting that people make mistakes, and working with them instead of treating this as a violation."
- masklinn 11y ago
  > Many people apparently did not have this expectation of technical conferences, based on their experiences. Or they did and were quickly disillusioned. > Really? To me it says "these are our expectations". Indeed. "Murder" is strictly legally defined and the definition is relatively universal, not so for some other behaviours. CoCs simply take the RFC option of defining what they're going to talk about beforehand so all participants can be on the same page.
jordigh 11y ago
Do you have a better explanation for the antagonism many feel (and I personally used to feel) towards codes of conduct? I think there's a varying range of situations in which people feel attacked by codes of conduct. 1) People actually want the right to be an asshole. They have come to believe that everyone should be allowed to say anything they want in any situation. They call this freedom of speech. Since a Code of Conduct contradicts this expectation, they blame the CoC because it is telling them to change themselves. Nobody likes to change themself. 2) People want to have a strict and narrow definition of what to do and what not to do. In our HN-like group, people want codes of conduct to be like programming languages for humans. Since CoCs must necessarily be vague because it's impossible to narrowly codify all human interaction, people feel unsure and fearful. They thus blame the problem on CoCs and would rather prefer anarchy and being allowed to act however they wish, without fear. 3) People feel like "their" "community" is being encroached upon by foreign individuals who feel "needlessly" victimised. An analogy of the most common case, the boys' locker room is now being opened up to everyone, particularly women. Since they cannot openly attack the newcomers, instead they attack their perceived work of authorship: the code of conduct.
vinceguidry 11y ago
When I was at RubyConf Colombia, I listened to a presenter stating that she will never again speak at or attend a conference that doesn't have an acceptable code of conduct. The reason she gave is that without a strongly-worded statement, the needs of vulnerable inevitably get trampled on, by that very antagonism the idea dredges up. When there's not a code of conduct and available avenues for reporting harassment and, more importantly, for others to recognize when someone is getting harassed and come to their assistance, then when there is a legitimate instance, the person getting harassed always ends up getting harassed more, by the very people they're trying to go to to resolve the situation. A code of conduct makes everything clear. Just the very suggestion that harassment could occur causes some people to really get their hackles up, as if you just accused them of harassment. I think that's the ultimate reason people have strong reactions to insistence on the need to have a policy. "Why would we need a policy, I would never harass anybody!" That sentiment itself, expressed to someone with legitimate needs, is perceived as harassment.
- PieterH 11y ago
  All so true.

by PieterH 11y ago

DasIch 11y ago

CoC do explain who to contact for help, the equivalent to 911, if you will.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

peteretep 11y ago

> However it's more like putting up a sign on a hotel > saying "Murder and mayhem will not be tolerated." I have previously held that view, but now think that was mostly a function of my white male privilege. If you go to a hotel proprietor and report murder and mayhew, you have a reasonable expectation that it will be dealt with properly. Many people apparently did not have this expectation of technical conferences, based on their experiences. Many people like myself - who hadn't had those experiences - assumed it was so obvious it didn't need saying. > This draws in predators I think that's right, but is a massive simplification. I think good people can act in ways that make other people feel uncomfortable, without meaning to, and that also needs some consideration. > The term "code of conduct" is itself a problem as it > strongly suggests "behave or else!" Really? To me it says "these are our expectations". > Do you have a better explanation for the antagonism > many feel (and I personally used to feel) towards > codes of conduct? I think many men growing up have negative formative experiences with certain women who have considerably more social power than them (for simplicity: the popular girls!) exerting it to make them feel ashamed. They see potential for what they see as a safe space being used against them. They have a genuine fear of their well-intentioned actions being used to label them as a bad person. They see the Adria Richards and Pycon examples as a realization of their worst fears in this area.

PieterH 11y ago
Honestly, accidental discomfort is part of being grown up. To try to regulate that is IMO both patronizing and counter productive. We need some level of friction to socialize. A CoC that lets well-meant actions become crimes is worse than no CoC at all. I explain this in my article: certain people will use poorly-designed tools to harass. The key to solving this mess is, and I stick by it, to separate accidental clumsiness from predatory behavior. There is no grey overlap. Once you separate these two, you can teach people to trust each other much more, while being properly cynical of the small slice of predators. This isn't hypothesis: we use this approach in our open source communities to encourage and thrive on honest mistake while watching for, and blocking predatory actions. I may add a piece to the protocol along the lines of, "Tolerance means accepting that people make mistakes, and working with them instead of treating this as a violation."
masklinn 11y ago
> Many people apparently did not have this expectation of technical conferences, based on their experiences. Or they did and were quickly disillusioned. > Really? To me it says "these are our expectations". Indeed. "Murder" is strictly legally defined and the definition is relatively universal, not so for some other behaviours. CoCs simply take the RFC option of defining what they're going to talk about beforehand so all participants can be on the same page.

jordigh 11y ago

Do you have a better explanation for the antagonism many feel (and I personally used to feel) towards codes of conduct? I think there's a varying range of situations in which people feel attacked by codes of conduct. 1) People actually want the right to be an asshole. They have come to believe that everyone should be allowed to say anything they want in any situation. They call this freedom of speech. Since a Code of Conduct contradicts this expectation, they blame the CoC because it is telling them to change themselves. Nobody likes to change themself. 2) People want to have a strict and narrow definition of what to do and what not to do. In our HN-like group, people want codes of conduct to be like programming languages for humans. Since CoCs must necessarily be vague because it's impossible to narrowly codify all human interaction, people feel unsure and fearful. They thus blame the problem on CoCs and would rather prefer anarchy and being allowed to act however they wish, without fear. 3) People feel like "their" "community" is being encroached upon by foreign individuals who feel "needlessly" victimised. An analogy of the most common case, the boys' locker room is now being opened up to everyone, particularly women. Since they cannot openly attack the newcomers, instead they attack their perceived work of authorship: the code of conduct.

vinceguidry 11y ago

When I was at RubyConf Colombia, I listened to a presenter stating that she will never again speak at or attend a conference that doesn't have an acceptable code of conduct. The reason she gave is that without a strongly-worded statement, the needs of vulnerable inevitably get trampled on, by that very antagonism the idea dredges up. When there's not a code of conduct and available avenues for reporting harassment and, more importantly, for others to recognize when someone is getting harassed and come to their assistance, then when there is a legitimate instance, the person getting harassed always ends up getting harassed more, by the very people they're trying to go to to resolve the situation. A code of conduct makes everything clear. Just the very suggestion that harassment could occur causes some people to really get their hackles up, as if you just accused them of harassment. I think that's the ultimate reason people have strong reactions to insistence on the need to have a policy. "Why would we need a policy, I would never harass anybody!" That sentiment itself, expressed to someone with legitimate needs, is perceived as harassment.

PieterH 11y ago
All so true.