4 ms·

> Why don't contributors openly reject this stupid system (not the rules themselves, which sound fine) and unseat these self-proclaimed procurators is beyond me

by gwd 6y ago

> Why don't contributors openly reject this stupid system (not the rules themselves, which sound fine) and unseat these self-proclaimed procurators is beyond me. Because some people actually do act like jerks, and we want to be able to tell those people to either stop acting like jerks or go away. > CoCs were doomed to this from the beginning. Rather, Codes of Conduct are more difficult than you think. The article itself points to several ways in which the committee in question didn't follow their own guidelines. It also points to "Code of Conduct Best Practices" which aren't followed by the Code of Conduct in question. > Any set of strict/influential laws should be supported by a proper set of institutions like courts, lawyers, arbitration, judging practice. This is I think a big problem right now. Our community adopted a Code of Conduct proactively; we haven't yet had to deal with any issues. But I'm painfully aware that doing this sort of policing well takes time, skill, and training, which I don't think it's reasonable for normal community members to take. On the one hand, I'd love to be able to (for instance) outsource all CoC engagement and enforcement to a specialized body, that could manage a whole investigation / accuser / defense / jury system for a number of different organizations. On the other hand, there are an awful lot of decisions made that I very much disagree with. For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21484347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21484347

chunkyfunky 6y ago
"On the one hand, I'd love to be able to (for instance) outsource all CoC engagement and enforcement to a specialized body, that could manage a whole investigation / accuser / defense / jury system for a number of different organizations." You know, that's a pretty good idea. And if there were actual laws backing it, then you already have a "working" system. Now I am starting to wonder, should CoCs even try to transcend the law, is that part of the problem, where we try to legislate for things that are in many cases subjective?
- wgerard 6y ago
  > should CoCs even try to transcend the law Yes? Companies do this all the time with codes of conduct and nobody really thinks twice about it. Nobody would think it's bizarre that (hypothetically, I don't know what their actual rules are) Coca-Cola has a rule barring employees from wearing a "Pepsi > Coke" shirt to client meetings. > where we try to legislate for things that are in many cases subjective? We do this all the time, even in our actual legal system. "Disturbing the Peace" is one example off the top of my head of something that's incredibly subjective that we consider the purview of the legal system.
  - chopin 6y ago
    >"Disturbing the Peace" is one example off the top of my head of something that's incredibly subjective that we consider the purview of the legal system. That doesn't mean it's a good thing. Good laws (especially criminal laws) should be normative, i.e. it should be deducible for anyone which behavior is punishable. Laws not adhering to this principle are ripe for selective enforcement and have no place in a rule-of-law society.
    - wgerard 6y ago
      This is going off on a tangent obviously compared to the OP's point (that the legal system doesn't try to control for subjective behavior, which is incorrect), but sure, I'll indulge. > That doesn't mean it's a good thing. I don't think this is a popular position, or even a necessarily logical one. There are a great deal of "I'm not touching you" type behaviors that society collectively despises and often falls under these catch-all categories. Legal doctrine is rife with "reasonable person" standards as a result that would be impossible to codify thoroughly and properly. Obviously, the mythical "reasonable person" doesn't exist and is often a judge or jury left to subjectively decide. For example, harassment laws sometimes rely on a "credible threat of violence" based on something that would "make a reasonable person afraid for their safety". Good luck enumerating all the possible definitions of that.
bananaface 6y ago
Why do you need a Code of Conduct to prevent people acting like jerks? If someone acts like a jerk tell them to stop, and if they don't, take action. IMO you don't need it enshrined in a dodgy pseudo-contract. That's a recipe for more problems than it solves.
- wgerard 6y ago
  For exactly the reason this article is being discussed: Without a code of conduct you're left with an arbitrary line about what "being a jerk" is. Codifying rules is meant to prevent that from happening, even though as we see it doesn't always work that way.
- herbstein 6y ago
  To pencil out even further what my sibling comment mentioned; you want to be able to say "you repeatedly did x and this is explicitly against our Code of Conduct that you said you'd read before your first contribution" instead of "you're being a jerk and as such we will be refusing any contributions from you going forward". The second example is completely arbitrary, and is up to the whims of the core team - whomever they might be. With a Code of Conduct you're (ideally) told up front what you can and cannot do. This reduces ambiguity and arbitrary decision making. I can also tell you that a Code of Conduct isn't a change to how I personally govern the projects and communities I'm in charge of. Instead, it's about writing down what I would already remove people for anyway.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    The effect is the same though? It’s not as if a code of conduct ever contains anything that sane people don’t already know. And like some other commenter said, it basically boils down to “don’t be an asshole”.
    - herbstein 6y ago
      All very true. But then you get drama about "what is an asshole". Trust me, it's not just a made up strawman argument. That happens regularly. Breaking the Code of Conduct isn't a one-and-done thing. You talk to that person, and tell them that what they said was over the line. Be that using a slur, being increasingly insulting to another community member, or something else. I, as an administrator, basically tell them "not cool". If their reaction is "yeah, alright" then nothing more comes of it. No citations. No three-strike rules. But if someone continually defies our reprimands we have the backing of saying "you've repeatedly been told... " and "this is written in ..." meaning nothing should come as a surprise. It's also a way for normal users to understand what might be rule-breaking behavior. I can't observe everything happening in a community, as much as I like participating in them. Instead, I have to rely on other non-admin members reporting bad behavior. Making it clear to other users what kind of behavior they can report someone for is also super helpful - and for some people induces trust.
Footkerchief 6y ago
> Rather, Codes of Conduct are more difficult than you think. That's a bug when trying to apply a coherent standard, but it's a feature when using the document as cover for arbitrary mob action.
- gwd 6y ago
  > That's a bug when trying to apply a coherent standard, but it's a feature when using the document as cover for arbitrary mob action. I hate to break it to you, but bad actors will use any available tool they can to gain power and do harm. If there's no Code of Conduct, some bad actor will take advantage of the ambiguity to do things they know make other people uncomfortable, just because they can. If there's an overly broad Code of Conduct, or one which doesn't protect the rights of the "accused" (either in how it's written or how it's enforced), then other bad actors will take advantage of it to exert power. That's why laws have to be written "defensively", like code exposed to the open internet. You have to try to anticipate exploits by bad actors ahead of time; and fix the ones you didn't spot as they're exploited.
  - Footkerchief 6y ago
    > bad actors will use any available tool they can to gain power and do harm Of course they will. That's what makes them bad actors :) But are the bad actors in the two scenarios (with/without Coc) the same kind of bad actors? Do they have the same set of motivations for being in the community, and the same ability to rally supporters? My perception is that the bad actors in the two scenarios are wildly different, and that they're different because Codes of Conduct tend to distort the core incentives for participation in the community.
charliebrownau 6y ago
Its the same reason Feminism 100 years on still "hasnt reached its goal" 100 years later It was never about fairness or treated the SAME It was a power grab to use women against males as a poltical tool to bring about Global LEFT Authorian control and communism Everyone knows deep down they cant compete on a equal footing with ethnic straight males because Whites are different from non whites Asians are different from blacks Females are different from Males Racism is a made up word to squash truth/debate/disussion Without goverment force via armed police (order followers),most would reject - Affirmitive action - Quotas - Super - GST/VAT - female only jobs - Black only jobs - Disabled only jobs and award the job to best qualfied native ethnic person instead of giving a leg over to imported population, gays or women
notsureaboutpg 6y ago
> we want to be able to tell those people to either stop acting like jerks or go away. Why do you need a CoC to do that? Just write exactly that quote of your comment and post it as the rules of your chat server/conference/etc. It's simple. All the multiple pages of CoCs for everything these days is just an argument waiting to happen. What is and isn't racist, sexist, mean, etc. multiple people aren't going to agree on. Just write in the rules, don't be a jerk, I and the mods/admins/volunteers decide who is and isn't a jerk. Done. Why do you need a CoC? With a CoC you are begging for this kind of trouble. Eventually someone will performatively complain that your CoC isn't enough. You can't just have a code of conduct now you need a Covenant of Conduct or some other thing. And you didn't include this ism and that phobia you only mentioned sexism and racism and you're not being intersectional enough and this is exactly why tech isn't diverse, blah blah blah. Why open yourself up to this at all?

by gwd 6y ago

chunkyfunky 6y ago

"On the one hand, I'd love to be able to (for instance) outsource all CoC engagement and enforcement to a specialized body, that could manage a whole investigation / accuser / defense / jury system for a number of different organizations." You know, that's a pretty good idea. And if there were actual laws backing it, then you already have a "working" system. Now I am starting to wonder, should CoCs even try to transcend the law, is that part of the problem, where we try to legislate for things that are in many cases subjective?

wgerard 6y ago
> should CoCs even try to transcend the law Yes? Companies do this all the time with codes of conduct and nobody really thinks twice about it. Nobody would think it's bizarre that (hypothetically, I don't know what their actual rules are) Coca-Cola has a rule barring employees from wearing a "Pepsi > Coke" shirt to client meetings. > where we try to legislate for things that are in many cases subjective? We do this all the time, even in our actual legal system. "Disturbing the Peace" is one example off the top of my head of something that's incredibly subjective that we consider the purview of the legal system.
- chopin 6y ago
  >"Disturbing the Peace" is one example off the top of my head of something that's incredibly subjective that we consider the purview of the legal system. That doesn't mean it's a good thing. Good laws (especially criminal laws) should be normative, i.e. it should be deducible for anyone which behavior is punishable. Laws not adhering to this principle are ripe for selective enforcement and have no place in a rule-of-law society.
  - wgerard 6y ago
    This is going off on a tangent obviously compared to the OP's point (that the legal system doesn't try to control for subjective behavior, which is incorrect), but sure, I'll indulge. > That doesn't mean it's a good thing. I don't think this is a popular position, or even a necessarily logical one. There are a great deal of "I'm not touching you" type behaviors that society collectively despises and often falls under these catch-all categories. Legal doctrine is rife with "reasonable person" standards as a result that would be impossible to codify thoroughly and properly. Obviously, the mythical "reasonable person" doesn't exist and is often a judge or jury left to subjectively decide. For example, harassment laws sometimes rely on a "credible threat of violence" based on something that would "make a reasonable person afraid for their safety". Good luck enumerating all the possible definitions of that.

bananaface 6y ago

Why do you need a Code of Conduct to prevent people acting like jerks? If someone acts like a jerk tell them to stop, and if they don't, take action. IMO you don't need it enshrined in a dodgy pseudo-contract. That's a recipe for more problems than it solves.

wgerard 6y ago
For exactly the reason this article is being discussed: Without a code of conduct you're left with an arbitrary line about what "being a jerk" is. Codifying rules is meant to prevent that from happening, even though as we see it doesn't always work that way.
herbstein 6y ago
To pencil out even further what my sibling comment mentioned; you want to be able to say "you repeatedly did x and this is explicitly against our Code of Conduct that you said you'd read before your first contribution" instead of "you're being a jerk and as such we will be refusing any contributions from you going forward". The second example is completely arbitrary, and is up to the whims of the core team - whomever they might be. With a Code of Conduct you're (ideally) told up front what you can and cannot do. This reduces ambiguity and arbitrary decision making. I can also tell you that a Code of Conduct isn't a change to how I personally govern the projects and communities I'm in charge of. Instead, it's about writing down what I would already remove people for anyway.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  The effect is the same though? It’s not as if a code of conduct ever contains anything that sane people don’t already know. And like some other commenter said, it basically boils down to “don’t be an asshole”.
  - herbstein 6y ago
    All very true. But then you get drama about "what is an asshole". Trust me, it's not just a made up strawman argument. That happens regularly. Breaking the Code of Conduct isn't a one-and-done thing. You talk to that person, and tell them that what they said was over the line. Be that using a slur, being increasingly insulting to another community member, or something else. I, as an administrator, basically tell them "not cool". If their reaction is "yeah, alright" then nothing more comes of it. No citations. No three-strike rules. But if someone continually defies our reprimands we have the backing of saying "you've repeatedly been told... " and "this is written in ..." meaning nothing should come as a surprise. It's also a way for normal users to understand what might be rule-breaking behavior. I can't observe everything happening in a community, as much as I like participating in them. Instead, I have to rely on other non-admin members reporting bad behavior. Making it clear to other users what kind of behavior they can report someone for is also super helpful - and for some people induces trust.

Footkerchief 6y ago

> Rather, Codes of Conduct are more difficult than you think. That's a bug when trying to apply a coherent standard, but it's a feature when using the document as cover for arbitrary mob action.

gwd 6y ago
> That's a bug when trying to apply a coherent standard, but it's a feature when using the document as cover for arbitrary mob action. I hate to break it to you, but bad actors will use any available tool they can to gain power and do harm. If there's no Code of Conduct, some bad actor will take advantage of the ambiguity to do things they know make other people uncomfortable, just because they can. If there's an overly broad Code of Conduct, or one which doesn't protect the rights of the "accused" (either in how it's written or how it's enforced), then other bad actors will take advantage of it to exert power. That's why laws have to be written "defensively", like code exposed to the open internet. You have to try to anticipate exploits by bad actors ahead of time; and fix the ones you didn't spot as they're exploited.
- Footkerchief 6y ago
  > bad actors will use any available tool they can to gain power and do harm Of course they will. That's what makes them bad actors :) But are the bad actors in the two scenarios (with/without Coc) the same kind of bad actors? Do they have the same set of motivations for being in the community, and the same ability to rally supporters? My perception is that the bad actors in the two scenarios are wildly different, and that they're different because Codes of Conduct tend to distort the core incentives for participation in the community.

charliebrownau 6y ago

Its the same reason Feminism 100 years on still "hasnt reached its goal" 100 years later It was never about fairness or treated the SAME It was a power grab to use women against males as a poltical tool to bring about Global LEFT Authorian control and communism Everyone knows deep down they cant compete on a equal footing with ethnic straight males because Whites are different from non whites Asians are different from blacks Females are different from Males Racism is a made up word to squash truth/debate/disussion Without goverment force via armed police (order followers),most would reject - Affirmitive action - Quotas - Super - GST/VAT - female only jobs - Black only jobs - Disabled only jobs and award the job to best qualfied native ethnic person instead of giving a leg over to imported population, gays or women

notsureaboutpg 6y ago

> we want to be able to tell those people to either stop acting like jerks or go away. Why do you need a CoC to do that? Just write exactly that quote of your comment and post it as the rules of your chat server/conference/etc. It's simple. All the multiple pages of CoCs for everything these days is just an argument waiting to happen. What is and isn't racist, sexist, mean, etc. multiple people aren't going to agree on. Just write in the rules, don't be a jerk, I and the mods/admins/volunteers decide who is and isn't a jerk. Done. Why do you need a CoC? With a CoC you are begging for this kind of trouble. Eventually someone will performatively complain that your CoC isn't enough. You can't just have a code of conduct now you need a Covenant of Conduct or some other thing. And you didn't include this ism and that phobia you only mentioned sexism and racism and you're not being intersectional enough and this is exactly why tech isn't diverse, blah blah blah. Why open yourself up to this at all?