4 ms·

With the exception of the "assume guilt" recommendation (which seems ripe for abuse), I think these guidelines are mostly fine. But calling abusive people "rock

by chroma 10y ago

With the exception of the "assume guilt" recommendation (which seems ripe for abuse), I think these guidelines are mostly fine. But calling abusive people "rock stars" seems unnecessarily controversial. Better to use the accurate and unambiguous "abuser". That describes Jacob Applebaum far more clearly than "rock star". Also, I think a term like "rock star" (in the benevolent sense) is a useful one. There are people who are really talented (and know it), who love the limelight, who sometimes say controversial things, and who have contributed more to our industry than any of us could hope to. I'm talking about people like Daniel J. Bernstein, David Heinemeier Hansson, Theo de Raadt, and (of course) Linus Torvalds. If we're going to give "rock star" purely negative connotations, I'm not sure what what to call these people. "Badass" would work, except some social circles frown upon profanity.

tptacek 10y ago
Rock star abusers are a subset of abusers, so your proposed change doesn't work. Try to give the piece the most charitable possible interpretation. Leigh Honeywell knows more about Daniel J. Bernstein and Theo de Raadt than most people on HN. There's an interpretation of this post that suggests she's claiming that DJB and Theo are abusers, but common sense --- we don't even need charity! --- tells us that's probably not what she's saying.
- MBCook 10y ago
  Abusers who are not rock stars are not as much of a problem because the community is much more willing to throw them out. They just seem like a troll. But if they are also a rock star they often get tolerated/encouraged. Their value appears to mean the community is willing to put up it. And THATS where rock stars are a problem. You can call Carmack a rock star, he's earned it. I don't think I've ever heard anything other than he's a nice guy (I hope that's not from lack of people speaking up).
- chroma 10y ago
  If you want to just focus on what you call "abusive rock stars", then I think the most accurate term is "abusive charlatan". That covers the lack of skill as well as the fame-seeking. In terms of reading charitably, I'm sorry to say that you're the one who needs to do more of it. I never implied that the author might be accusing those people of abusive behavior. In fact, that idea didn't even occur to me until you mentioned it. I was just giving examples of good "rock stars" in our field. My issue is this: There are plenty of existing terms that accurately describe what the author is talking about. If she manages to redefine "rock star" to be purely negative, it robs us of a useful word. And because of that, a lot of people are going to be against her definitional change. (As evidence, just look at this HN thread.) She could gain more support by avoiding this definitional fight.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    There are abusive rock stars who are not charlatans, so that doesn't work well either. I'm not saying that the debate over terminology is unproductive; maybe we'll hit on the perfect word. But it's not the point of the piece.
  - kyledrake 10y ago
    I'm with you on this one. I don't like abusers and assholes, but I like the title, and intend to continue to use it in a positive light, sparingly, and with good purpose. In my interpretation of the title, some rock stars are jerks, others are actually pretty good people. When I used to work in politics, after he did a great speech at the DNC convention, I called Obama a "rock star" that was going to go on to big things. That was long before he announced his run for presidency. Mind you, I didn't even vote for him and I said that (I proudly throw my presidential vote away for the Libertarian candidate every year). That title works best, naturally, when it isn't diluted down in crappy job postings. I'm all for tossing out abusers here, don't get me wrong. But honestly, as perhaps the only person here that has ever actually contracted a form of Cholera (long story), I still wouldn't want to live in a world that's only plumbers, and I don't think you would either.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I'm harping on this, I know, but I really don't think the goal of this post is to get people to stop using the term "rock star", and the fact that people keep suggesting that's the controversy makes me worry people haven't really read the piece very carefully.
      - kyledrake 10y ago
        Subtly equating abusive behavior with people that are energetic and ambitious is clearly baked into the nature of this conversation and that particular facet is quite controversial to me, and to a lot of people here that are likely as concerned about abusive behavior as I am. We don't need to institutionally get rid of "rock stars". Their ambition for attention and fame is a recipe for a lot of great things. What I think we really need here is to get better at not enabling them to be abusive, and for calling them out when they are. I also do think we need to get better at choosing who our rock stars are, an opinion I got a long time ago from watching Limp Bizkit win a music award.

by chroma 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

Rock star abusers are a subset of abusers, so your proposed change doesn't work. Try to give the piece the most charitable possible interpretation. Leigh Honeywell knows more about Daniel J. Bernstein and Theo de Raadt than most people on HN. There's an interpretation of this post that suggests she's claiming that DJB and Theo are abusers, but common sense --- we don't even need charity! --- tells us that's probably not what she's saying.

MBCook 10y ago
Abusers who are not rock stars are not as much of a problem because the community is much more willing to throw them out. They just seem like a troll. But if they are also a rock star they often get tolerated/encouraged. Their value appears to mean the community is willing to put up it. And THATS where rock stars are a problem. You can call Carmack a rock star, he's earned it. I don't think I've ever heard anything other than he's a nice guy (I hope that's not from lack of people speaking up).
chroma 10y ago
If you want to just focus on what you call "abusive rock stars", then I think the most accurate term is "abusive charlatan". That covers the lack of skill as well as the fame-seeking. In terms of reading charitably, I'm sorry to say that you're the one who needs to do more of it. I never implied that the author might be accusing those people of abusive behavior. In fact, that idea didn't even occur to me until you mentioned it. I was just giving examples of good "rock stars" in our field. My issue is this: There are plenty of existing terms that accurately describe what the author is talking about. If she manages to redefine "rock star" to be purely negative, it robs us of a useful word. And because of that, a lot of people are going to be against her definitional change. (As evidence, just look at this HN thread.) She could gain more support by avoiding this definitional fight.
- tptacek 10y ago
  There are abusive rock stars who are not charlatans, so that doesn't work well either. I'm not saying that the debate over terminology is unproductive; maybe we'll hit on the perfect word. But it's not the point of the piece.
- kyledrake 10y ago
  I'm with you on this one. I don't like abusers and assholes, but I like the title, and intend to continue to use it in a positive light, sparingly, and with good purpose. In my interpretation of the title, some rock stars are jerks, others are actually pretty good people. When I used to work in politics, after he did a great speech at the DNC convention, I called Obama a "rock star" that was going to go on to big things. That was long before he announced his run for presidency. Mind you, I didn't even vote for him and I said that (I proudly throw my presidential vote away for the Libertarian candidate every year). That title works best, naturally, when it isn't diluted down in crappy job postings. I'm all for tossing out abusers here, don't get me wrong. But honestly, as perhaps the only person here that has ever actually contracted a form of Cholera (long story), I still wouldn't want to live in a world that's only plumbers, and I don't think you would either.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I'm harping on this, I know, but I really don't think the goal of this post is to get people to stop using the term "rock star", and the fact that people keep suggesting that's the controversy makes me worry people haven't really read the piece very carefully.
    - kyledrake 10y ago
      Subtly equating abusive behavior with people that are energetic and ambitious is clearly baked into the nature of this conversation and that particular facet is quite controversial to me, and to a lot of people here that are likely as concerned about abusive behavior as I am. We don't need to institutionally get rid of "rock stars". Their ambition for attention and fame is a recipe for a lot of great things. What I think we really need here is to get better at not enabling them to be abusive, and for calling them out when they are. I also do think we need to get better at choosing who our rock stars are, an opinion I got a long time ago from watching Limp Bizkit win a music award.