6 ms·
> It really is inevitable. Has there ever been an instance of a CoC being used in a reasonable way against an actually unreasonable person? From the history,
by commandlinefan 7y ago
> It really is inevitable.
Has there ever been an instance of a CoC being used in a reasonable way against an actually unreasonable person? From the history, it appears that CoC’s were designed to stop Linus Torvalds, specifically, but he’s still around (but he does seem to be afraid of CoC enforcers now).
- mfer 7y ago> Has there ever been an instance of a CoC being used in a reasonable way against an actually unreasonable person? Yes. Though, most CoC violations are handled privately for those involved so we don't hear much about them.
- goatinaboat 7y agoYes. [citation needed]
- mfer 7y agoPart of a typical process is that these things are handled privately. Only the rare exceptions go public. That means those that know or can reference cases cannot share this detail. I would provide a citation if I could but I respect the privacy of the process so I can't.
- DuskStar 7y agoThe problem with this is it's the same argument that gets used to justify things like the Patriot Act. "The only times you see us use this power is in horrible ways, but we assure you, most of the time we use it for good reasons! We just can't tell you about it, because CLASSIFIED". In short, it's an argument that only works if you already trust the person making the argument. IMO that shouldn't fly with the Patriot Act, and it shouldn't fly here either.
- lliamander 7y agoShouldn't the ones handled publicly be handled with greater care given the scrutiny?
- djsumdog 7y agoI remember watching randyben get banned from Kiwicon one year. It was very public. They said his talk violated the CoC without specifically mentioned which part and how. It was very public, announced in front of the whole conference.
- quantummkv 7y ago> Yes. Though, most CoC violations are handled privately That really sounds like abuse of power with extra steps. Either ALL of these violations should be private or NONE of them should be. Selectively enforcing something like this is just bias and vendetta politics
- young_unixer 7y agoI think that a reasonable code would allow the punished party to publicly disclose their punishment, otherwise the punishers (for lack of a better term) would do whatever they wanted. But it should be private by default.
- type0 7y agoSo maybe the expected outcome is merging of HR-SJW positions and NDA-CoC so that "everyone" can feel safe
- PeterisP 7y agoI believe that many CoC violations would include private events which the victim would like to keep private. After all, there's a good reason why we don't make all the police reports about harassment public.
- syshum 7y agoSure but in those situations most like the CoC's like we are talking about (things like the contributor covenant) would not be need to remove the person that was abusive I have been a part of many projects with out these types of CoC's where people have been removed from the project because they were an asshole, or the project is forked and the assholes are left behind Historically that was the way of open source. Today however it is much different... Politics and Social Status seem to matter more than Code, merit, and reality
- bbanyc 7y agoI'd turn it around. Has there ever been an instance of a CoC being used in an unreasonable way against an actually reasonable person? There's been a few cases that blew up because the behavior fell into an arguably ambiguous zone, but I can't think of anyone who suffered real consequences and didn't have it coming. Just a little more tact and thoughtfulness on the offender's part would have saved a world of trouble. Now I'm of two minds on this. I do sometimes miss the more freewheeling culture of the '00s, and feel like the need for constant compliance has drained the tech scene of some life... but honestly it's a small price to pay if the only alternative is tolerating fascists in your midst.
- sincerely 7y ago>Has there ever been an instance of a CoC being used in an unreasonable way against an actually reasonable person? Said instance is the only reason this thread exists, no?
- bbanyc 7y agoWearing a MAGA hat is arguably a CoC violation in and of itself. The entire purpose is to offend.
- curryst 7y agoI would disagree. I'm not a Republican myself, but it doesn't seem any different than wearing a Bernie hat or T shirt. He is expressing his political beliefs. You may find them offensive, and he may likewise find your views offensive, but I doubt either of you are doing so with the intent to offend.
- zarkov99 7y agoOn what planet? Would you say the same of a Yang (MATH) hat? I loath Trump as much as anyone but this is utterly insane. We are not talking about Nazi imagery here, we are talking about a hat that supports the president elect - who by the way might very well win a second term on the back of this sort of un-american censorship.
- specialist 7y agoAbsolutely. I served on the exec board of a non profit org that used our CoC to adjudicate behavior (sexual predator, harassment, etc) that was not covered by our bylaws. One big difference, why our CoC proved useful, was we had a trial. Plaintiff, defendant, evidence, testimony, jury, deliberation. All of it. It was a lot of work. And EXTREMELY painful. But it worked. A popular leader had a day in court. And our org emerged stronger for it.