4 ms·

Hand a committee opaque power with little oversight and no strict rules governing their own conduct. Populate it with probably well intentioned people who more

Hand a committee opaque power with little oversight and no strict rules governing their own conduct. Populate it with probably well intentioned people who more than anything want to do something, anything about things in the world that are actually bad. You will, in general, find out how easy it is to find monsters under the bed and witches in the town next over, and you will do so very quickly. It is an extremely fast way to get an alignment check roll. It just, uh, has side effects.

anonymousiam 6y ago
Yes, I fully agree. It's just another example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
- readthenotes1 6y ago
  "But its findings were wrong. Very wrong. And not just due to its questionable ethics or lack of concrete data — but because of deceit." https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-exper...
  - anonymousiam 6y ago
    The findings have not been duplicated, but that doesn't mean the experiment did not produce the results described. I am very much aware of the controversy surrounding this experiment, but it has been cited MANY times over the past (almost) 50 years.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      There are lots of widely cited, wrong, studies. It being widely cited should be more of a motivator to "not* cite it and object to it's use, to further inform people that it is bunk. You should not continue to cite popular, wrong, studies.
lukev 6y ago
Ok, but seriously, what's the alternative? Should literally _everything_ be an fully transparent democratic process (and good luck keeping it fair when bad actors show up en masse)? Having a CoC is at least an improvement on the previous status quo, which was some group of individuals making arbitrary decisions in secret without any justification for their actions _at all_. CoC's don't give anyone more power than they already had; they just clearly express the principles that the group already in power will (ostensibly) use to make choices.
- anonymousiam 6y ago
  Democratic processes have been proven to be exploitable. A good example is Microsoft's stacking of the ISO OOXML committee: https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-accused-of-stacking-iso-committee/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-accused-of-stacking-... So are we stuck between a choice of democracy, dictatorship, or a politburo? Maybe the organizers of events like this should stick to organizing the event and not trying to regulate the behavior of presenters and attendees.
  - lukev 6y ago
    Choosing which talks have the tone and content you want for your conference is an integral part of organizing an event. I'm not sure what you're actually advocating here.
    - anonymousiam 6y ago
      Free speech.
- hprotagonist 6y ago
  a COC as such is fine, but most implementations are godawful and that _must_ change. Most people are not trained to run them, but do so anyway, and that's clearly what's gone on here. The committee that is responsible for judging COC violations must: - operate transparently: no star chambers! - have a real, actual, not-just-we-checked-a-box culture of engineering ethics where individuals on the committee can say "no, this complaint is obvious bullshit, let's move on" without fear of reprisal from the committee members themselves, or the organizational power structure they report to. >CoC's don't give anyone more power than they already had Nonsense. Formation of a committee as such is implicit power; formation of a committee to adjudicate politically sensitive and fraught matters is explicit power.

anonymousiam 6y ago

Yes, I fully agree. It's just another example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

readthenotes1 6y ago
"But its findings were wrong. Very wrong. And not just due to its questionable ethics or lack of concrete data — but because of deceit." https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-exper...
- anonymousiam 6y ago
  The findings have not been duplicated, but that doesn't mean the experiment did not produce the results described. I am very much aware of the controversy surrounding this experiment, but it has been cited MANY times over the past (almost) 50 years.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    There are lots of widely cited, wrong, studies. It being widely cited should be more of a motivator to "not* cite it and object to it's use, to further inform people that it is bunk. You should not continue to cite popular, wrong, studies.

lukev 6y ago

Ok, but seriously, what's the alternative? Should literally _everything_ be an fully transparent democratic process (and good luck keeping it fair when bad actors show up en masse)? Having a CoC is at least an improvement on the previous status quo, which was some group of individuals making arbitrary decisions in secret without any justification for their actions _at all_. CoC's don't give anyone more power than they already had; they just clearly express the principles that the group already in power will (ostensibly) use to make choices.

anonymousiam 6y ago
Democratic processes have been proven to be exploitable. A good example is Microsoft's stacking of the ISO OOXML committee: https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-accused-of-stacking-iso-committee/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-accused-of-stacking-... So are we stuck between a choice of democracy, dictatorship, or a politburo? Maybe the organizers of events like this should stick to organizing the event and not trying to regulate the behavior of presenters and attendees.
- lukev 6y ago
  Choosing which talks have the tone and content you want for your conference is an integral part of organizing an event. I'm not sure what you're actually advocating here.
  - anonymousiam 6y ago
    Free speech.
hprotagonist 6y ago
a COC as such is fine, but most implementations are godawful and that _must_ change. Most people are not trained to run them, but do so anyway, and that's clearly what's gone on here. The committee that is responsible for judging COC violations must: - operate transparently: no star chambers! - have a real, actual, not-just-we-checked-a-box culture of engineering ethics where individuals on the committee can say "no, this complaint is obvious bullshit, let's move on" without fear of reprisal from the committee members themselves, or the organizational power structure they report to. >CoC's don't give anyone more power than they already had Nonsense. Formation of a committee as such is implicit power; formation of a committee to adjudicate politically sensitive and fraught matters is explicit power.