11 ms·

Using CoC's to backstab people is not going to end well. Using CoC's to institute a heirarchy of 'who can criticize who' is going to be rebelled against. Some

Using CoC's to backstab people is not going to end well. Using CoC's to institute a heirarchy of 'who can criticize who' is going to be rebelled against. Some people are power hungry and use words to get power. They are exposing themselves in the silliest ways. Pure vanity.

Nextgrid 6y ago
This new CoC trend is similar to some HOA (homeowners associations) horror stories where the people in charge of the HOA do so for the power trip as opposed to actually providing value.
- pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
  Over the years, HN's userbase has made it clear most are unfamiliar with Wikipedia beyond surface level details. Folks on this site would probably be surprised how often this happens in the sausage factory there, too. The big theme in all the most exasperating cases, whether to do with HOAs, CoC enforcement, or even the police seems to involve: 1. wide difference between rules as written and agreed to versus how they are applied 2. unchecked power for enforcers, who can flout punishment/scrutiny, as above, for reasons below 3. insufficient interest from parties not directly impacted
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    At least in the cases you mention (HOA or police) there is value in the service they provide and it only becomes a problem when they get overrun by people on a power trip. On the other hand, the whole CoC thing feels like it was created by people on a power trip, and/or as a virtue signalling instrument to appear "inclusive", and/or a convenient character assassination tool that can be selectively enforced. Keep in mind that "violation of the code of conduct" sounds much worse than "this person offended me/made me uncomfortable" even though in most cases they are used to refer to the same thing. People for the most part know how to behave themselves, disagreements can be resolved in private between the involved parties and if someone keeps being a dick you just don't engage with them (note that a CoC will not change anything if the person intends to keep harassing their victim). We've been working fine like that, both online and in the real world without any CoC (the law is enough to deal with actually serious cases). A CoC doesn't add anything to people already acting in good faith (other than being a thing they can be "cancelled" about), but does nothing against a dedicated malicious actor who couldn't care less about it anyway. Someone wanting to instigate drama and intentionally get offended must've said something about "inclusivity", everyone jumped on it as a virtue-signalling tool and now here we are.
    - MauranKilom 6y ago
      To some degree, you are correct. But I believe you underestimate the amount of abuse and harassment that certain groups of people face in reality. > We've been working fine like that, both online and in the real world without any CoC I'm not sure what you consider "fine". Misogyny has been par for the course for a long time. Not to mention verbal degradation of e.g. ethnicity, gender, and sexuality. We have not suddenly removed these formerly accepted behaviors, even though things have gotten better. It is possible that there really isn't a problem in communities you engage with, and that consequently their CoCs make little positive impact. But do you really know what kinds of inappropriate remarks e.g. women around you face? It is easy to dismiss anyone who had such negative experiences as a professional victim, but surely the world doesn't just consist of "perfectly reasonable and encompassing people that know better than to offend", "harassers that purposely ignore any community guidelines"? In short: Yes, CoC creation and enforcement will naturally appeal to certain groups of people that have more personal motives than those of the community. The same is true of HOA, police, unions, workers' councils and so on. But please be careful to dismiss their usefulness due to this.
      - thaneross 6y ago
        > you underestimate the amount of abuse and harassment that certain groups of people face While I don't think this point is necessarily wrong, surely we can agree that in recent years there has been expansion of what is considered abuse. As with any push to change ideas, not everyone is on-board. Is being subjected to a micro-aggression abuse? 20 years ago you'd only get a "yes" from a few activists / academics. Today you'll find a vocal (and growing) minority claiming it is a form of violence. We don't all agree on the new rules, and CoCs are a method of making everyone follow them.
        MauranKilom 6y ago
        > surely we can agree that in recent years there has been expansion of what is considered abuse. Indeed! See "Misogyny was par for the course". I understand that's not what you are getting at specifically, but the whole point is that just because it's been acceptable before doesn't mean that it's right. > We don't all agree on the new rules, and CoCs are a method of making everyone follow them. Exactly! The intent is to cause a change in behavior, and that's not going to happen if everybody has to sign off on it. Most people don't like having to change their behavior. Again, CoC enforcement is not without its flaws, and policing interpersonal interaction is never going to be a hard and fast thing. But CoCs give everyone tools to nudge behavior away from what is objectively causing (subjective) distress.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
donatj 6y ago
It’s been my general experience that this is why largely what CoC's end up actually being used for. Arbitrarily enforced and wielded as a weapon.
- blooalien 6y ago
  Exactly this. It's abuse (both of people, and of "the system"), pure and simple. This is exactly why each passing day brings me a little bit more hatred of this entire "SJW" mentality and the people who support it. Can't go even one full day anymore without seeing some instance in the news of someone abusing these exact sorta "rules" to straight-up harass people. It's just the latest form of socially acceptable bullying is all it is...
barumi 6y ago
> Using CoC's to backstab people is not going to end well. But that's their only usecase, isn't it? CoCs are just a convenient document aimed at helping out Cardinal Richelieus finding ways to hang you under the guise of breaking acceptable conduct. I mean, CoCs aren't aimed at changing people and make everyone nice. CoCs are aimed at providing a basis to persecute those who arguably don't comply with a given notion of acceptable conduct, punish them for their sins, and turn them into examples to enforce a chilling effect on the community. This example shows a CoC working exactly as it was intended to work. People have turned a blind eye to the oppressive and abusive nature of the CoC concept because they tend to believe that it can only ever oppress those we deem undesirable. But unless you're the one doing the oppression, nothing ensures that the rules only apply to those you don't like.
- moron4hire 6y ago
  They don't have to be that way. I admit that many of them are just that sort of thing. But they can be tools to communicate to good-faith actors that they will be welcome and safe. I think part of the problem is that most CoCs are copy-paste jobs. They're put in place as a matter of fashion. What they really need to be is a statement on the commitments of the leadership. And they are meaningless if the leadership is not trained on those commitments.
  - barumi 6y ago
    > They don't have to be that way. They really have, because that's the sole reason they exist. It's like arguing that a oppressive totalitarian regime doesn't have to oppress their citizens. > (...) they can be tools to communicate to good-faith actors that they will be welcome and safe. CoCs aren't welcoming letters. CoCs are designed with the express purpose of letting you know that you will be punished if you do or say anything that the leader's deem unacceptable, and to be used as the basis for persecuting and punishing you if you still fail to fall in line and comply with the leadership's will. Hell, you don't need to communicate to anyone that they can and will be safe. Either that's already implied, or means nothing if you don't plan to act on it. In fact, it's patently wrong that the goal is safety. It is not. The goal is compliance and submissiveness.
ben0x539 6y ago
I'm not familiar with the people involved, what's the hierarchy in this incident?
elric 6y ago
> Using CoC's to institute a heirarchy of 'who can criticize who' is going to be rebelled against. Rebelled against? By whom? If you want to speak at this conference, you have to play by their rules or you won't get invited. Even if you do get invited, and you're not nice, you'll get humiliated and driven to tears. If there's going to be a rebellion, it's by would-be speakers at the conference, but that would be against their own interest: they like to speak at conferences, so they won't. So anyone who wants to speak at this conference will be turning a blind eye to this. Would-be attendees also won't be making a fuss, conferences with interesting speakers tend to attract large crowds. A handful of would-be rebels won't make any difference.

Nextgrid 6y ago

This new CoC trend is similar to some HOA (homeowners associations) horror stories where the people in charge of the HOA do so for the power trip as opposed to actually providing value.

pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
Over the years, HN's userbase has made it clear most are unfamiliar with Wikipedia beyond surface level details. Folks on this site would probably be surprised how often this happens in the sausage factory there, too. The big theme in all the most exasperating cases, whether to do with HOAs, CoC enforcement, or even the police seems to involve: 1. wide difference between rules as written and agreed to versus how they are applied 2. unchecked power for enforcers, who can flout punishment/scrutiny, as above, for reasons below 3. insufficient interest from parties not directly impacted
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  At least in the cases you mention (HOA or police) there is value in the service they provide and it only becomes a problem when they get overrun by people on a power trip. On the other hand, the whole CoC thing feels like it was created by people on a power trip, and/or as a virtue signalling instrument to appear "inclusive", and/or a convenient character assassination tool that can be selectively enforced. Keep in mind that "violation of the code of conduct" sounds much worse than "this person offended me/made me uncomfortable" even though in most cases they are used to refer to the same thing. People for the most part know how to behave themselves, disagreements can be resolved in private between the involved parties and if someone keeps being a dick you just don't engage with them (note that a CoC will not change anything if the person intends to keep harassing their victim). We've been working fine like that, both online and in the real world without any CoC (the law is enough to deal with actually serious cases). A CoC doesn't add anything to people already acting in good faith (other than being a thing they can be "cancelled" about), but does nothing against a dedicated malicious actor who couldn't care less about it anyway. Someone wanting to instigate drama and intentionally get offended must've said something about "inclusivity", everyone jumped on it as a virtue-signalling tool and now here we are.
  - MauranKilom 6y ago
    To some degree, you are correct. But I believe you underestimate the amount of abuse and harassment that certain groups of people face in reality. > We've been working fine like that, both online and in the real world without any CoC I'm not sure what you consider "fine". Misogyny has been par for the course for a long time. Not to mention verbal degradation of e.g. ethnicity, gender, and sexuality. We have not suddenly removed these formerly accepted behaviors, even though things have gotten better. It is possible that there really isn't a problem in communities you engage with, and that consequently their CoCs make little positive impact. But do you really know what kinds of inappropriate remarks e.g. women around you face? It is easy to dismiss anyone who had such negative experiences as a professional victim, but surely the world doesn't just consist of "perfectly reasonable and encompassing people that know better than to offend", "harassers that purposely ignore any community guidelines"? In short: Yes, CoC creation and enforcement will naturally appeal to certain groups of people that have more personal motives than those of the community. The same is true of HOA, police, unions, workers' councils and so on. But please be careful to dismiss their usefulness due to this.
    - thaneross 6y ago
      > you underestimate the amount of abuse and harassment that certain groups of people face While I don't think this point is necessarily wrong, surely we can agree that in recent years there has been expansion of what is considered abuse. As with any push to change ideas, not everyone is on-board. Is being subjected to a micro-aggression abuse? 20 years ago you'd only get a "yes" from a few activists / academics. Today you'll find a vocal (and growing) minority claiming it is a form of violence. We don't all agree on the new rules, and CoCs are a method of making everyone follow them.
      - MauranKilom 6y ago
        > surely we can agree that in recent years there has been expansion of what is considered abuse. Indeed! See "Misogyny was par for the course". I understand that's not what you are getting at specifically, but the whole point is that just because it's been acceptable before doesn't mean that it's right. > We don't all agree on the new rules, and CoCs are a method of making everyone follow them. Exactly! The intent is to cause a change in behavior, and that's not going to happen if everybody has to sign off on it. Most people don't like having to change their behavior. Again, CoC enforcement is not without its flaws, and policing interpersonal interaction is never going to be a hard and fast thing. But CoCs give everyone tools to nudge behavior away from what is objectively causing (subjective) distress.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

donatj 6y ago

It’s been my general experience that this is why largely what CoC's end up actually being used for. Arbitrarily enforced and wielded as a weapon.

blooalien 6y ago
Exactly this. It's abuse (both of people, and of "the system"), pure and simple. This is exactly why each passing day brings me a little bit more hatred of this entire "SJW" mentality and the people who support it. Can't go even one full day anymore without seeing some instance in the news of someone abusing these exact sorta "rules" to straight-up harass people. It's just the latest form of socially acceptable bullying is all it is...

barumi 6y ago

> Using CoC's to backstab people is not going to end well. But that's their only usecase, isn't it? CoCs are just a convenient document aimed at helping out Cardinal Richelieus finding ways to hang you under the guise of breaking acceptable conduct. I mean, CoCs aren't aimed at changing people and make everyone nice. CoCs are aimed at providing a basis to persecute those who arguably don't comply with a given notion of acceptable conduct, punish them for their sins, and turn them into examples to enforce a chilling effect on the community. This example shows a CoC working exactly as it was intended to work. People have turned a blind eye to the oppressive and abusive nature of the CoC concept because they tend to believe that it can only ever oppress those we deem undesirable. But unless you're the one doing the oppression, nothing ensures that the rules only apply to those you don't like.

moron4hire 6y ago
They don't have to be that way. I admit that many of them are just that sort of thing. But they can be tools to communicate to good-faith actors that they will be welcome and safe. I think part of the problem is that most CoCs are copy-paste jobs. They're put in place as a matter of fashion. What they really need to be is a statement on the commitments of the leadership. And they are meaningless if the leadership is not trained on those commitments.
- barumi 6y ago
  > They don't have to be that way. They really have, because that's the sole reason they exist. It's like arguing that a oppressive totalitarian regime doesn't have to oppress their citizens. > (...) they can be tools to communicate to good-faith actors that they will be welcome and safe. CoCs aren't welcoming letters. CoCs are designed with the express purpose of letting you know that you will be punished if you do or say anything that the leader's deem unacceptable, and to be used as the basis for persecuting and punishing you if you still fail to fall in line and comply with the leadership's will. Hell, you don't need to communicate to anyone that they can and will be safe. Either that's already implied, or means nothing if you don't plan to act on it. In fact, it's patently wrong that the goal is safety. It is not. The goal is compliance and submissiveness.

ben0x539 6y ago

I'm not familiar with the people involved, what's the hierarchy in this incident?

elric 6y ago

> Using CoC's to institute a heirarchy of 'who can criticize who' is going to be rebelled against. Rebelled against? By whom? If you want to speak at this conference, you have to play by their rules or you won't get invited. Even if you do get invited, and you're not nice, you'll get humiliated and driven to tears. If there's going to be a rebellion, it's by would-be speakers at the conference, but that would be against their own interest: they like to speak at conferences, so they won't. So anyone who wants to speak at this conference will be turning a blind eye to this. Would-be attendees also won't be making a fuss, conferences with interesting speakers tend to attract large crowds. A handful of would-be rebels won't make any difference.