3 ms·

It's mental gymnastics. I'm not convinced that CoCs are valuable. Even without the explicit language, you can still kick out people who behave badly. (IMO) The

by monksy 6y ago

It's mental gymnastics. I'm not convinced that CoCs are valuable. Even without the explicit language, you can still kick out people who behave badly. (IMO) The CoCs are just there to try to make a political statement about which groups of people they support and to justify groupthink. Anyways, to those people that believe there are a few minor slippages in what the CoC was intended for. I have been banned from a public slack group for a CoC: It was from the Confluent slack group after they ran a contest/game for their Kafka Summit conference. They did the virtual points system which could be traded for branded swag. I earned the points needed. They informed people that the swag was limited first come first serve, and they said they'd announce the store. Well at least half of the people didn't get the email notifying about the store, half did and made their orders. There was no formal communication from Confluent, other than "we're working on it." 2 days went by, people were asking on #kafka-summit, we were given bad suggestions (by Confluent) about how to auth into the store. Then I got a letter from the store that "sorry you didn't participate and you're not eligible." No notice about this from Confluent, so I ended up posting "I just got this letter WTF, @conferenceorgs". That prompted them being more concerned about "me swearing at their staff". Also I mentioned "I figure I'm going to already get banned so I'll say it: This makes Confluent look sh_tty" ... a few minutes later CoC banned by Tim Berglund [the head of dev adv at confluent].

Volundr 6y ago
I'd actually agree that banning you was probably a bit much but let's actually look at the chain of events from your own account here. You post "WTF @conferenceorgs". They warn you about swearing at their staff (I probably wouldn't treat it this way, but we do all know what the F stands for). You respond by... swearing at their staff? When you get a warning, then respond to that warning by repeating the offense it's hard to be surprised or outraged you didn't get a second warning.
- monksy 6y ago
  The language was never directed at their staff. It was directed towards the communication I got from them, and how I believe it makes the org look themselves(note). The tagging was to alert them that it was going on. Attacking individuals is completely unwarranted. -- For the sake of conversion: What counts as harassment- is the org an individual? Does exclaiming frustration for a situation and getting the attention of someone count as an attack on the individuals notified? -- Note: I believe that if an org can't communicate what's going on and why you may be seeing erroneous emails from a third party, what is going on with their virtual currency that is traded for real world value. Why should I trust that org with $30k a year for a dev server?
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    Then stop paying them $30k! Cussing at their underpaid support staff is pointless. Companies are not human; they only understand money.
    - monksy 6y ago
      The company that was qouted that didn't pay it. I'm not a customer, I am a potential customer. [Companies I've worked for have used Kafka, or have developed their own system similar to it] The only thing this has taught me, never advocate for or encourage the company to stay with them.
- ImprobableTruth 6y ago
  ... do you think the 'what the hell is going on at [company]" is also swearing at their staff? Because I don't think anybody I know would, to me this seems pretty damn clearly like using technicalities/inaccurate definitions as a weapon.
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    ... uh yes? If you say "what the hell?" directly to a representative of that company, then you are literally using profanity at their staff. Like, we can disagree about whether that's a sensible rule or if we should make allowances for non-abusive colloquial phrases ('wtf', 'what the hell?', etc.) or something, but how can you argue it's not breaking the black-and-white rule as written?
    - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
      >we should make allowances for non-abusive colloquial phrases ('wtf', 'what the hell?', etc.) or something, but how can you argue it's not breaking the black-and-white rule as written? Because 'swear at' at specifically means using a swear _against_ somebody, not just in a statement while talking to them. If you look at e.g. any of the definitions in the free dictionary, you'll find that they're all about using abusive language towards someone, so the idea of 'non-abusive swearing' at somebody in itself is as absurd as say a 'non-abusive insult'. It's the difference between swearing in front of your children and swearing at your children, one is possibly bad parenting, the other definitely is. [1] https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/swear+at https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/swear+at
      - ForHackernews 6y ago
        You're splitting hairs with a diamond blade here if you're claiming that "What the hell is wrong with <company>?" doesn't count as, "utter[ing] a curse or similarly vulgar or abusive language toward someone or something." [from your link]

by monksy 6y ago

Volundr 6y ago

I'd actually agree that banning you was probably a bit much but let's actually look at the chain of events from your own account here. You post "WTF @conferenceorgs". They warn you about swearing at their staff (I probably wouldn't treat it this way, but we do all know what the F stands for). You respond by... swearing at their staff? When you get a warning, then respond to that warning by repeating the offense it's hard to be surprised or outraged you didn't get a second warning.

monksy 6y ago
The language was never directed at their staff. It was directed towards the communication I got from them, and how I believe it makes the org look themselves(note). The tagging was to alert them that it was going on. Attacking individuals is completely unwarranted. -- For the sake of conversion: What counts as harassment- is the org an individual? Does exclaiming frustration for a situation and getting the attention of someone count as an attack on the individuals notified? -- Note: I believe that if an org can't communicate what's going on and why you may be seeing erroneous emails from a third party, what is going on with their virtual currency that is traded for real world value. Why should I trust that org with $30k a year for a dev server?
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  Then stop paying them $30k! Cussing at their underpaid support staff is pointless. Companies are not human; they only understand money.
  - monksy 6y ago
    The company that was qouted that didn't pay it. I'm not a customer, I am a potential customer. [Companies I've worked for have used Kafka, or have developed their own system similar to it] The only thing this has taught me, never advocate for or encourage the company to stay with them.
ImprobableTruth 6y ago
... do you think the 'what the hell is going on at [company]" is also swearing at their staff? Because I don't think anybody I know would, to me this seems pretty damn clearly like using technicalities/inaccurate definitions as a weapon.
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  ... uh yes? If you say "what the hell?" directly to a representative of that company, then you are literally using profanity at their staff. Like, we can disagree about whether that's a sensible rule or if we should make allowances for non-abusive colloquial phrases ('wtf', 'what the hell?', etc.) or something, but how can you argue it's not breaking the black-and-white rule as written?
  - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
    >we should make allowances for non-abusive colloquial phrases ('wtf', 'what the hell?', etc.) or something, but how can you argue it's not breaking the black-and-white rule as written? Because 'swear at' at specifically means using a swear _against_ somebody, not just in a statement while talking to them. If you look at e.g. any of the definitions in the free dictionary, you'll find that they're all about using abusive language towards someone, so the idea of 'non-abusive swearing' at somebody in itself is as absurd as say a 'non-abusive insult'. It's the difference between swearing in front of your children and swearing at your children, one is possibly bad parenting, the other definitely is. [1] https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/swear+at https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/swear+at
    - ForHackernews 6y ago
      You're splitting hairs with a diamond blade here if you're claiming that "What the hell is wrong with <company>?" doesn't count as, "utter[ing] a curse or similarly vulgar or abusive language toward someone or something." [from your link]