2 ms·

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

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.
  - pcstl 8y ago
    No problem at all. I am not attempting to change your opinion (which I understand is well-reasoned), but to explain my own.

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.
- pcstl 8y ago
  No problem at all. I am not attempting to change your opinion (which I understand is well-reasoned), but to explain my own.