4 ms·
Nodevember is offering refunds, so it's very hard to see how this could be a scam, and difficult to imagine how Nodevember would stand to make anything but a la
by pryce 10y ago
Nodevember is offering refunds, so it's very hard to see how this could be a scam, and difficult to imagine how Nodevember would stand to make anything but a large loss by removing Crockford as a speaker. They chose to proceed with this anyway, which is indicative of serious concerns.
Removing him as a speaker and remaining quiet about the exact reasons can mean any number of things.
Suppose they have compelling reasons to believe having him speak would be harmful, but that they do not have a firm enough basis that they are comfortable publicising, in which case publishing their rationale could be both unethical itself and could expose them to legal action.
Or perhaps they have received information in confidence, from sources they trust, but believe that information received in confidence is not theirs to publish without consent. Or perhaps their information is alarming and yet primarily circumstantial from a constellation of different sources.
In essence, there is a fairly wide terrain where it is perfectly warranted to have deal-breaking levels of concern about a prospective speaker without being in a position to merit publishing accusations against them.
From the responses here, it seems that many struggle to imagine conference organizers could be placed in such a position. This is exactly kind of bias we might expect to find in an overly white and male subculture where navigating these kinds of murky waters is at most a purely hypothetical exercise rather than a day-to-day reality.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Corrado 10y agoThen again, if you don't have some solid evidence that a talk will be offensive, how can you ban it. Is this the Minority Report where you are punished for things you haven't done yet? Mr. Crockford is a leading Javascript expert, kicking him our of your Javascript conference should only be done with some very compelling facts not just hearsay and conjecture that you can't tell anyone about.
- pryce 10y ago> Crockford is a leading Javascript expert, How is this relevant? This idea that we should apply different standards to "leading Javascript experts" than other people is far more troubling than the idea that a speaker might be invited to and then disinvited from a conference from time to time. > should only be done with some very compelling facts not just hearsay and conjecture I have already given several plausible examples of when a conference could have grounds enough to rescind a speaker invitation without having the grounds to make public accusations.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago> a speaker might be invited to and then disinvited from a conference from time to time Alright then, nobody ever talk to that offended person in any shape or form again, ever. No biggie when that happens from time to time, right? And I can make a good case for it, too, certainly a better one than then non-case we were being presented with. You can invite her to anything, she can has any job, just nobody be friends with her. When she asks you something, act deaf. That's not too much too ask, correct? Totally fair, no biggie, we're not wearing armbands over here at all.
- joeevans1000 10y ago> Suppose they have compelling reasons to believe having him speak would be harmful... They didn't have any. Just take a look at the posted transcript of their discussion of this in their slack channel. It shows they had no solid reasons for doing this, and a childlike unawareness of the gravity of the situation.
- pryce 10y agoI read the slack channel; I didn't see anything to indicate that the channel is where the decision was made, or represents their reasoning.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]