4 ms·

The one thing that isn’t relevant to this post is the details of the original offense. Their objections to the resulting outcomes stands apart from the details

The one thing that isn’t relevant to this post is the details of the original offense. Their objections to the resulting outcomes stands apart from the details of the original offense, and their focus on those outcomes is permissible and appropriate when one desires to avoid creating a pitchfork mob. EDIT: See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19713970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19713970

pcstl 8y ago
Is the original offense not relevant, though? I mean, how many of the people crying foul on DataCamp's treatment of the issue actually _know_ the details of what happened and how many are just forming a pitchfork mob anyway without proper information? How is it possible to determine whether DC's response was adequate or not without knowing what happened?
- floatingatoll 8y ago
  The original offense is not the subject of this post. Attempting to make it the subject of discussion is a derail. HN is not here to pass judgement on whether a specific person’s accusation of personal misconduct is or is not valid. HN is here to pass judgement on whether a organization in our industry responded with an appropriate process when an accusation was made. Based on the “noindex”, I would say that they are not following an acceptable process, no matter the veracity or lack thereof in the accusations levied. If I were to discuss the specific accusations in an attempt to pass judgement on their veracity, I would expect to be flagged and eventually warned or banned by the mods.
  - pcstl 8y ago
    "HN is here to pass judgement on whether a organization in our industry responded with an appropriate process when an accusation was made." How can it be determined if judgment was appropriate with absolutely no reference to the facts? That is like saying that we should be able to determine whether it was right or not to imprison a criminal without knowing what crime they committed! Yes, the "noindex" is an issue, but this feels much bigger than just that.
    - floatingatoll 8y ago
      There are two sets of facts in play: 1) Something happened between some people. 2) Something happened when an organization associated with them responded. It is totally fine to discuss #2 without discussing #1. They are an organization, not an individual, and their quality of response should remain high regardless of the specifics of #1. The post judges the quality of their response to be unacceptable. That judgement is valid to consider and discuss without regard to the circumstances that causes their response to exist.
      - pcstl 8y ago
        I agree that discussing #1 beyond what is strictly required to be able to assess DC's response would qualify as derailing, however I respectfully disagree that "It is totally fine to discuss #2 without discussing #1". I believe that, to assess the quality of the response, it is required to understand what was the level of severity of the event. How the event should be handled, and hence the response, is a function of the severity of the event. Of course, if we view the response as being to a broader "climate of suspicion" surrounding DC, it can be assessed differently - but it still would require contextual information for assessment, specifically regarding what circumstances have created this climate of suspicion in the first place. While some actions on DataCamp's part - specifically, the noindex tag - are definitely shady, it is difficult to understand whether their response (which seems to be mostly to attempt to reassure the data science community that they are listening and focused on being a positive actor in the community) is appropriate or not without understanding what they are responding to.
        floatingatoll 8y ago
        I am sorry that you have difficulty evaluating their response without knowing the original story. Unfortunately I will not budge. EDIT: Someone suggested I’ve overstepped here somehow. I don’t understand how but regardless I apologize; it is not my intent to demean nor otherwise speak less of you. We disagree and I wanted to honor that but also close the thread and I may have done so badly.
AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
Ok, so, if I understand correctly, the main issues are that: 1. The company didn't take the incident seriously enough, and 2. The company tried to cheat (put: noindex) in their response. In order to agree (or disagree) with the first item it would be good to know was the incident serious enough to be taken seriously. The second item probably deserves some slapping on the wrist. Boycotting the company though? Not sure.

pcstl 8y ago

Is the original offense not relevant, though? I mean, how many of the people crying foul on DataCamp's treatment of the issue actually _know_ the details of what happened and how many are just forming a pitchfork mob anyway without proper information? How is it possible to determine whether DC's response was adequate or not without knowing what happened?

floatingatoll 8y ago
The original offense is not the subject of this post. Attempting to make it the subject of discussion is a derail. HN is not here to pass judgement on whether a specific person’s accusation of personal misconduct is or is not valid. HN is here to pass judgement on whether a organization in our industry responded with an appropriate process when an accusation was made. Based on the “noindex”, I would say that they are not following an acceptable process, no matter the veracity or lack thereof in the accusations levied. If I were to discuss the specific accusations in an attempt to pass judgement on their veracity, I would expect to be flagged and eventually warned or banned by the mods.
- pcstl 8y ago
  "HN is here to pass judgement on whether a organization in our industry responded with an appropriate process when an accusation was made." How can it be determined if judgment was appropriate with absolutely no reference to the facts? That is like saying that we should be able to determine whether it was right or not to imprison a criminal without knowing what crime they committed! Yes, the "noindex" is an issue, but this feels much bigger than just that.
  - floatingatoll 8y ago
    There are two sets of facts in play: 1) Something happened between some people. 2) Something happened when an organization associated with them responded. It is totally fine to discuss #2 without discussing #1. They are an organization, not an individual, and their quality of response should remain high regardless of the specifics of #1. The post judges the quality of their response to be unacceptable. That judgement is valid to consider and discuss without regard to the circumstances that causes their response to exist.
    - pcstl 8y ago
      I agree that discussing #1 beyond what is strictly required to be able to assess DC's response would qualify as derailing, however I respectfully disagree that "It is totally fine to discuss #2 without discussing #1". I believe that, to assess the quality of the response, it is required to understand what was the level of severity of the event. How the event should be handled, and hence the response, is a function of the severity of the event. Of course, if we view the response as being to a broader "climate of suspicion" surrounding DC, it can be assessed differently - but it still would require contextual information for assessment, specifically regarding what circumstances have created this climate of suspicion in the first place. While some actions on DataCamp's part - specifically, the noindex tag - are definitely shady, it is difficult to understand whether their response (which seems to be mostly to attempt to reassure the data science community that they are listening and focused on being a positive actor in the community) is appropriate or not without understanding what they are responding to.
      - floatingatoll 8y ago
        I am sorry that you have difficulty evaluating their response without knowing the original story. Unfortunately I will not budge. EDIT: Someone suggested I’ve overstepped here somehow. I don’t understand how but regardless I apologize; it is not my intent to demean nor otherwise speak less of you. We disagree and I wanted to honor that but also close the thread and I may have done so badly.

AlexTWithBeard 8y ago

Ok, so, if I understand correctly, the main issues are that: 1. The company didn't take the incident seriously enough, and 2. The company tried to cheat (put: noindex) in their response. In order to agree (or disagree) with the first item it would be good to know was the incident serious enough to be taken seriously. The second item probably deserves some slapping on the wrist. Boycotting the company though? Not sure.