9 ms·

I'm going to get downvoted for this, but: I'm against code of conducts because they're worse than the problems they try to solve. edit: In my opinion, code of

I'm going to get downvoted for this, but: I'm against code of conducts because they're worse than the problems they try to solve. edit: In my opinion, code of conducts become a distraction and a cause for worry to anyone contributing to these projects because someone inevitably gets their feelings hurt and points to some well-intentioned rule in the CoC to get the 'offender' shamed/removed even if no harm was intended.

eckza 6y ago
I'm probably going to go down with you; but can you elaborate on that a little?
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  It is the same problem as with censorship/fact checkers etc ... who do you trust to determine what is truth/fake news/coc violation and why do you trust them. In abstract the CoC are fine if are written and enforced by impartial angels with well developed common sense. The people that usually push for them are for politics and power.
- theshrike79 6y ago
  People start using them to thought-police people. Yes, a Code of Conduct is a good way to say no to harrasment, racism and stuff that's generally frowned upon. But, as this case proves, they devolve too easily into thought police level crap, where the "Code" becomes vague and filled with useless buzzwords, that could be construed to fit any situation someone disagrees with. And with the current cancel culture, there is a real, verifiable threat to people's livelihood when they are judged by Twitter Court for breaking a CoC.
- torstenvl 6y ago
  I'm not the OP but: - There is no presumption of innocence. - There are no formal rights of an accused. - There is no clear delineation of what constitutes a violation. - There is no right to confront those making an allegation. - There are no negative consequences for making a false allegation. - All of which leads to a system whereby people are subjected to ostracism and official censure for violating unwritten rules, all without proof. A person can find their life ruined merely by saying the wrong thing or in the wrong tone, all while being told that the system is just and fair and seeking to protect the vulnerable. It is dishonest, it is gaslighting, and it is frankly Soviet. I am a criminal defense attorney with experience in personnel law. I know first hand how important the presumption of innocence is, and I know first hand how disastrous these personnel management "policies" can be.
  - StreamBright 6y ago
    Exactly. > All of which leads to a system whereby people are subjected to ostracism and official censure for violating unwritten rules, all without proof Aka which hunt. The downvoter crew has already arrived though.
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    There are people who are openly hostile to all of these ancient principles. It's not just people who are too green to know better. I've seen a user with a 2007 vintage account and >30k karma extol the virtue of smear campaigns. Scary times.
  - StillBored 6y ago
    A lot of them don't seem to have a "warning" phase either. In a lot of cases I'm guessing the harasser isn't really aware that someone is feeling harassed. Plus, in many cases they don't get applied equally anyway, the project leader is going to get handled a lot differently than a random contributor. AKA one gets sent to etiquette school, the other gets banned from the conference and mailing list.
Xavdidtheshadow 6y ago
I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm guessing you haven't been harassed/given unwanted attention at a conference. It's easy to see codes of conduct as draconian or unnecessary if you can't empathize with the people they're designed to protect. I'm not saying the CoC system is perfect or that there aren't false positives, but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged.
- closeparen 6y ago
  This kind of argument often comes up. Two implicit premises should be questioned: 1) Liberal values are associated with privilege. 2) Because of this association we should embrace authoritarianism. Is authoritarianism any less privileged? It assumes that the authorities are on your side and protecting your interests... that seems right down the middle of privilege. A low privilege person would probably benefit from liberal governance/norms that limit the damage hostile authorities can do.
  - notJim 6y ago
    Having rules that are written down and apply to everyone is a liberal value, last I checked. It is far more authoritarian for the standards to be unwritten, because then instead of applying them to everyone, the people in charge can do whatever they want. Throwing out the whole concept of having agreed-upon rules because of one bad outcome seems like a major step backwards to me.
    - dahfizz 6y ago
      > Having rules that are written down and apply to everyone is a liberal value A Liberal is anti-arbitrary power. In the context of formal governments and legal systems, that includes having written laws. I would argue having a vague CoC which is designed to be interpreted and applied arbitrarily by power tripping bureaucrats actually increases arbitrary power. Through the CoC, the committee here was empowered to persecute any action they didn't like. That's the opposite of Liberalism.
      - 6y ago
StreamBright 6y ago
I do not think so. I think this post and what happened to Jeremy is the excellent example of how bad this CoCs really are. Presume guilty until proven otherwise? Use intentionally vague terms so that anybody can be put through this process? I mean seriously, this is exactly how witch-hunts worked in the "dark ages". Anyways, I think Jeremy responded very well and he is not going to waste his time on this muppet show anymore. This is what the silent majority has to do to get rid of these CoC people.
frereubu 6y ago
I think you might get downvoted because you started with “I’m going to get downvoted for this...”
- dheera 6y ago
  Reverse psychology often works; I have seen many examples of this on both HN and Reddit.
- patorjk 6y ago
  I'm not so sure about this. I routinely see comments that start like that with a lot of upvotes. It could be survival bias, but I have a feeling reverse psychology could be coming into play.
rdiddly 6y ago
There was a pretty lively discussion of this issue yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24926214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24926214 ...specifically under what is currently the top comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24927123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24927123
Supermancho 6y ago
> The process has left me shattered, and I won’t be able to accept any speaking requests for the foreseeable future. In regards to CoCs, sometimes this snowflake mentality seems to go hand in hand, because they are tailored to the most fragile of sensibilities, which is a Bad Thing(tm). I'm not sure how this "shatters" someone or what that even means (not trying to attack here, as it just doesn't make any sense). - Discriminatory jokes and language - Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms - Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior These are largely subjective, so why bother caring about what you might have said to set someone off? So what if you won't take up speaking engagement requests? Duh. As we know that these CoCs are ridiculous and someone might want to seriously consider having nothing to do with organizations that utilize them. He can post up talks on Youtube if he wants to be heard, especially now. TL;DR Jeremy did a talk and it turned out strangely so nothing's lost here.
wk_end 6y ago
I mean, obviously they’re not worse than the problems they’re trying to solve. Sexual harassment, etc. is worse than someone getting their talk canceled unfairly, distraction, or worry about contributing to a project, full stop. Whether they’re effective in practice, or if there are more effective methods is another question. But it’s hard to overstate the importance of their intentions.
pstuart 6y ago
Yet you participate here on HN, and there is effectively a CoC: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- wk_end 6y ago
  One of the irritating things about these CoC discussions is that the codes, really, are acting in a metonymic fashion. Codes of behaviour are, of course, common place all throughout the world. When people complain about Codes of Conduct in software, they’re broadly complaining about a particular movement that’s pushed codes of particular conduct, enforced with particular mechanisms (and they would often argue biases). The HN guidelines don’t fall under that umbrella.
  - pstuart 6y ago
    HN is a pseudo anonymous message board, thus not as restrictive. But in any activity where people are "collaborating", especially in shared space (like a conference) there are more concerns to be addressed. The programming world historically has been the domain of white men, and these CoCs are often a response to the fact that things have changed. Any talk about "CoCs are bad" or "CoCs are just for people to arbitrarily impose their morality" are wrong. We need guidelines, and we need to be prepared to refine those guidelines and how they are enforced on a continual basis. That dismissive talk brings this quote to mind: "When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality seems like oppression."
    - wk_end 6y ago
      I don't really disagree with any of that, but it's also exactly what I'm talking about above. Given that you posted both the original reply and this one, I think you're kind of guilty of the old Motte & Bailey [1]. Just for the record: I'm privileged (and generally pretty polite/non-offensive I hope), I've rarely needed to deal with any of the issues addressed by CoCs, and I've also never really dealt with any of the issues others claim are caused by CoCs. I don't personally have a strong opinion on them, and lean towards trusting activists when they say things need to change. I'm just commenting on why discussions about them are so frequently unproductive: there's both misunderstanding and deliberate misrepresentation, because it's not codes of conduct in general that people - possibly wrong people! - don't like. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...
mabbo 6y ago
> In particular, I was concerned that if only partial information became available, the anti-CoC crowd might jump on this as an example of problems with codes of conduct more generally, or might point at this as part of “cancel culture” (a concept I vehemently disagree with, since what is referred to as “cancellation” is often just “facing consequences”). I believe the author was referring to you.
type0 6y ago
It's better to follow 10 commandments than any code of conduct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
- mcherm 6y ago
  Details of how one worships and how one interacts with one's parents are rarely ever relevant in the context of a conference. What I am saying is that even if all conference attendees agreed that the ten commandments were at the root of their ethical behavior (consider, for example, a conference among sects of Christianity that are focused on those commandments), Even then it would be useful for the conference to have specific statements about whether (for example) sexist language was permitted or not permitted during talks.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  The first four of them seem like fairly clear discrimination.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  "No Sunday conferences, do not kill or pillage from other conference goers. Do not lie or fornicate outside of marriage. And worship the Christian god." How is that even remotely better? It doesn't address... any... of the behavior that led to this type of CoC.
wvenable 6y ago
Jeremy says in own post on this subject: > I was concerned that if only partial information became available, the anti-CoC crowd might jump on this as an example of problems with codes of conduct more generally, or might point at this as part of “cancel culture” The person at the center of this actually disagrees with you. Having a vague CoC that was then not even really followed by the committee should not damn all CoCs. If you only see the worst most poorly executed examples of something then of course you'd be against them but that's not fair.
hsod 6y ago
why would you get downvoted for expressing the dominant opinion of HN on this matter? have you ever read a CoC thread on here?
ksdale 6y ago
I used to have feelings similar to yours, and then I started playing Valorant with my wife. The amount of vitriol she gets simply for being a woman is staggering. I had no idea because I didn't come across women in tactical shooters very often, and I wasn't a jackass to them when I did. But it's something like every other game that someone is ridiculously rude to her because she's a woman. This is in addition to all of the normal toxicity that, e.g. I receive just for being a person playing a game where everyone has mics. Before this discovery, I would have guessed that "someone inevitably gets their feelings hurt and points to some well-intentioned rule in the CoC to get the 'offender' shamed/removed even if no harm was intended" was a much larger percentage of the cases than it is. I also would have thought that anything that makes a lot of people uncomfortable that they might accidentally cross the line is worse than the current harm. Now that I've much more personal experience with what it means to be a person who is an actual target of harassment, I realize that these edge cases make up a tiny proportion of the harassment that happens. And when you bring the hammer down on people who are unequivocally harassers, it is important that you do so in a way that's fair and not subject to recharacterization as unjust later, when no one who was there is a part of the conversation. A great many good people being uncomfortable is unfortunate, but I also think it's a sign of the kind of cognitive dissonance that I experienced before playing with my wife. I had never experienced anything other than the usual toxicity, so I naively assumed that it couldn't be that prevalent. The fact that a CoC feels like overkill is, perhaps, evidence for the proposition that the problem with harassment is much more real than it might feel to those of us who are not targets of harassment. And the kind of people who will harass someone so shamelessly are exactly the kind of people who will boldly lie about not being given a reason for their discipline, or who will loudly complain about the rules not being explicit, even though it's incredibly obvious to everyone present that their behavior was beyond the pale. The edge cases are edge cases, and unfortunate, but I don't believe most cases are edge cases.
- vkgfx 6y ago
  I see the same thing in CS:GO. Then people wonder why no women stick with it long enough to go pro.
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
frereubu 6y ago
The Tyranny of Structurelessness is an HN perennial, but I think you would do well to read it if you haven't before: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm CoCs are problematic like much of lived human experience, but they're better than a structureless void that allows people to discriminate without a formal process that makes sure they can be held to account.
Yetanfou 6y ago
I'll try to refine your argument a bit: codes of conduct have tended to become a distraction because of the sudden onslaught of such from a specific, highly politicised group of people who have used the opportunity to try to enforce their way of looking at the world upon others by getting their 'code of conduct' - which reads like a political pamphlet - adopted by a number of high-visibility projects. Having a code of conduct in itself does not need to be distracting as long as that code is politically neutral and above all short and concise. A good example of such a code of conduct is the following: don't be a jerk Everybody knows what this means. Nearly everybody will agree on how to behave.
- wvenable 6y ago
  > don't be a jerk I disagree. This whole situation with Jeremy is because of vague rules just like this. If I tell you that you are "wrong", you might consider me to be "jerk" and we can do this whole song and dance. What communities are trying to police and prevent is outright sexism, racism, etc. For that, being explicit is better than just offering that someone is "being a jerk".
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    Nope, being wrong is not being a jerk, this used to be common sense and is what we need to go back to. Feel free to change the wording on the proposed CoC from don't be a jerk to don't be an asshole or something similar, the end result should still be the same: most people will understand what is meant. Some people won't but that can not be helped. The more elaborate the code, the more it will be used for other purposes, Fewer words is also possible but even in the total absence of a code of conduct most communities - 4chan et al excluded - will still have the unspoken assumption to not be a jerk. Having this encoded in a code of conduct at least makes sure those other, politically motivated 'codes' do not get a foothold.
    - wvenable 6y ago
      I don't know how you can make this argument when this exact situation is caused by the very thing you are advocating for. “Be welcoming”, “Be considerate”, and “Be friendly” is something most people understand as much as "asshole" and "jerk". And yet here we are -- the counterexample is literally this topic.
ookdatnog 6y ago
Yet you are here, on HN, a forum with a code of conduct (they're called guidelines but the commenting rules constitute a CoC), and this CoC is enforced firmly. I don't mean this in a snarky "get outta here" way, but: why are you here? Why not any other forum, tech-related or otherwise? Why not 4chan? Whatever the reason is, is the answer not quite likely to be at least in part made possible by the CoC and its strict enforcement?
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  You treat it like a coincidence that HN guidelines are called "guidelines" instead of "Code of Conduct". I don't think it's a coincidence. I think there's a certain kind of ethos behind behind any "Code of Conduct" process, and that ethos is not present on HN. And I'm really happy about that. I think HN moderation is amazing and it allows for conversations that you couldn't have anywhere else on the web.

eckza 6y ago

I'm probably going to go down with you; but can you elaborate on that a little?

ReptileMan 6y ago
It is the same problem as with censorship/fact checkers etc ... who do you trust to determine what is truth/fake news/coc violation and why do you trust them. In abstract the CoC are fine if are written and enforced by impartial angels with well developed common sense. The people that usually push for them are for politics and power.
theshrike79 6y ago
People start using them to thought-police people. Yes, a Code of Conduct is a good way to say no to harrasment, racism and stuff that's generally frowned upon. But, as this case proves, they devolve too easily into thought police level crap, where the "Code" becomes vague and filled with useless buzzwords, that could be construed to fit any situation someone disagrees with. And with the current cancel culture, there is a real, verifiable threat to people's livelihood when they are judged by Twitter Court for breaking a CoC.
torstenvl 6y ago
I'm not the OP but: - There is no presumption of innocence. - There are no formal rights of an accused. - There is no clear delineation of what constitutes a violation. - There is no right to confront those making an allegation. - There are no negative consequences for making a false allegation. - All of which leads to a system whereby people are subjected to ostracism and official censure for violating unwritten rules, all without proof. A person can find their life ruined merely by saying the wrong thing or in the wrong tone, all while being told that the system is just and fair and seeking to protect the vulnerable. It is dishonest, it is gaslighting, and it is frankly Soviet. I am a criminal defense attorney with experience in personnel law. I know first hand how important the presumption of innocence is, and I know first hand how disastrous these personnel management "policies" can be.
- StreamBright 6y ago
  Exactly. > All of which leads to a system whereby people are subjected to ostracism and official censure for violating unwritten rules, all without proof Aka which hunt. The downvoter crew has already arrived though.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  There are people who are openly hostile to all of these ancient principles. It's not just people who are too green to know better. I've seen a user with a 2007 vintage account and >30k karma extol the virtue of smear campaigns. Scary times.
- StillBored 6y ago
  A lot of them don't seem to have a "warning" phase either. In a lot of cases I'm guessing the harasser isn't really aware that someone is feeling harassed. Plus, in many cases they don't get applied equally anyway, the project leader is going to get handled a lot differently than a random contributor. AKA one gets sent to etiquette school, the other gets banned from the conference and mailing list.

Xavdidtheshadow 6y ago

I don't mean this as an attack, but I'm guessing you haven't been harassed/given unwanted attention at a conference. It's easy to see codes of conduct as draconian or unnecessary if you can't empathize with the people they're designed to protect. I'm not saying the CoC system is perfect or that there aren't false positives, but your statement here is _dramatically_ privileged.

closeparen 6y ago
This kind of argument often comes up. Two implicit premises should be questioned: 1) Liberal values are associated with privilege. 2) Because of this association we should embrace authoritarianism. Is authoritarianism any less privileged? It assumes that the authorities are on your side and protecting your interests... that seems right down the middle of privilege. A low privilege person would probably benefit from liberal governance/norms that limit the damage hostile authorities can do.
- notJim 6y ago
  Having rules that are written down and apply to everyone is a liberal value, last I checked. It is far more authoritarian for the standards to be unwritten, because then instead of applying them to everyone, the people in charge can do whatever they want. Throwing out the whole concept of having agreed-upon rules because of one bad outcome seems like a major step backwards to me.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    > Having rules that are written down and apply to everyone is a liberal value A Liberal is anti-arbitrary power. In the context of formal governments and legal systems, that includes having written laws. I would argue having a vague CoC which is designed to be interpreted and applied arbitrarily by power tripping bureaucrats actually increases arbitrary power. Through the CoC, the committee here was empowered to persecute any action they didn't like. That's the opposite of Liberalism.
    - 6y ago

StreamBright 6y ago

I do not think so. I think this post and what happened to Jeremy is the excellent example of how bad this CoCs really are. Presume guilty until proven otherwise? Use intentionally vague terms so that anybody can be put through this process? I mean seriously, this is exactly how witch-hunts worked in the "dark ages". Anyways, I think Jeremy responded very well and he is not going to waste his time on this muppet show anymore. This is what the silent majority has to do to get rid of these CoC people.

frereubu 6y ago

I think you might get downvoted because you started with “I’m going to get downvoted for this...”

dheera 6y ago
Reverse psychology often works; I have seen many examples of this on both HN and Reddit.
patorjk 6y ago
I'm not so sure about this. I routinely see comments that start like that with a lot of upvotes. It could be survival bias, but I have a feeling reverse psychology could be coming into play.

rdiddly 6y ago

There was a pretty lively discussion of this issue yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24926214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24926214 ...specifically under what is currently the top comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24927123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24927123

Supermancho 6y ago

> The process has left me shattered, and I won’t be able to accept any speaking requests for the foreseeable future. In regards to CoCs, sometimes this snowflake mentality seems to go hand in hand, because they are tailored to the most fragile of sensibilities, which is a Bad Thing(tm). I'm not sure how this "shatters" someone or what that even means (not trying to attack here, as it just doesn't make any sense). - Discriminatory jokes and language - Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms - Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior These are largely subjective, so why bother caring about what you might have said to set someone off? So what if you won't take up speaking engagement requests? Duh. As we know that these CoCs are ridiculous and someone might want to seriously consider having nothing to do with organizations that utilize them. He can post up talks on Youtube if he wants to be heard, especially now. TL;DR Jeremy did a talk and it turned out strangely so nothing's lost here.

wk_end 6y ago

I mean, obviously they’re not worse than the problems they’re trying to solve. Sexual harassment, etc. is worse than someone getting their talk canceled unfairly, distraction, or worry about contributing to a project, full stop. Whether they’re effective in practice, or if there are more effective methods is another question. But it’s hard to overstate the importance of their intentions.

pstuart 6y ago

Yet you participate here on HN, and there is effectively a CoC: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

wk_end 6y ago
One of the irritating things about these CoC discussions is that the codes, really, are acting in a metonymic fashion. Codes of behaviour are, of course, common place all throughout the world. When people complain about Codes of Conduct in software, they’re broadly complaining about a particular movement that’s pushed codes of particular conduct, enforced with particular mechanisms (and they would often argue biases). The HN guidelines don’t fall under that umbrella.
- pstuart 6y ago
  HN is a pseudo anonymous message board, thus not as restrictive. But in any activity where people are "collaborating", especially in shared space (like a conference) there are more concerns to be addressed. The programming world historically has been the domain of white men, and these CoCs are often a response to the fact that things have changed. Any talk about "CoCs are bad" or "CoCs are just for people to arbitrarily impose their morality" are wrong. We need guidelines, and we need to be prepared to refine those guidelines and how they are enforced on a continual basis. That dismissive talk brings this quote to mind: "When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality seems like oppression."
  - wk_end 6y ago
    I don't really disagree with any of that, but it's also exactly what I'm talking about above. Given that you posted both the original reply and this one, I think you're kind of guilty of the old Motte & Bailey [1]. Just for the record: I'm privileged (and generally pretty polite/non-offensive I hope), I've rarely needed to deal with any of the issues addressed by CoCs, and I've also never really dealt with any of the issues others claim are caused by CoCs. I don't personally have a strong opinion on them, and lean towards trusting activists when they say things need to change. I'm just commenting on why discussions about them are so frequently unproductive: there's both misunderstanding and deliberate misrepresentation, because it's not codes of conduct in general that people - possibly wrong people! - don't like. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...

mabbo 6y ago

> In particular, I was concerned that if only partial information became available, the anti-CoC crowd might jump on this as an example of problems with codes of conduct more generally, or might point at this as part of “cancel culture” (a concept I vehemently disagree with, since what is referred to as “cancellation” is often just “facing consequences”). I believe the author was referring to you.

type0 6y ago

It's better to follow 10 commandments than any code of conduct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

mcherm 6y ago
Details of how one worships and how one interacts with one's parents are rarely ever relevant in the context of a conference. What I am saying is that even if all conference attendees agreed that the ten commandments were at the root of their ethical behavior (consider, for example, a conference among sects of Christianity that are focused on those commandments), Even then it would be useful for the conference to have specific statements about whether (for example) sexist language was permitted or not permitted during talks.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
The first four of them seem like fairly clear discrimination.
edmundsauto 6y ago
"No Sunday conferences, do not kill or pillage from other conference goers. Do not lie or fornicate outside of marriage. And worship the Christian god." How is that even remotely better? It doesn't address... any... of the behavior that led to this type of CoC.

wvenable 6y ago

Jeremy says in own post on this subject: > I was concerned that if only partial information became available, the anti-CoC crowd might jump on this as an example of problems with codes of conduct more generally, or might point at this as part of “cancel culture” The person at the center of this actually disagrees with you. Having a vague CoC that was then not even really followed by the committee should not damn all CoCs. If you only see the worst most poorly executed examples of something then of course you'd be against them but that's not fair.

hsod 6y ago

why would you get downvoted for expressing the dominant opinion of HN on this matter? have you ever read a CoC thread on here?

ksdale 6y ago

I used to have feelings similar to yours, and then I started playing Valorant with my wife. The amount of vitriol she gets simply for being a woman is staggering. I had no idea because I didn't come across women in tactical shooters very often, and I wasn't a jackass to them when I did. But it's something like every other game that someone is ridiculously rude to her because she's a woman. This is in addition to all of the normal toxicity that, e.g. I receive just for being a person playing a game where everyone has mics. Before this discovery, I would have guessed that "someone inevitably gets their feelings hurt and points to some well-intentioned rule in the CoC to get the 'offender' shamed/removed even if no harm was intended" was a much larger percentage of the cases than it is. I also would have thought that anything that makes a lot of people uncomfortable that they might accidentally cross the line is worse than the current harm. Now that I've much more personal experience with what it means to be a person who is an actual target of harassment, I realize that these edge cases make up a tiny proportion of the harassment that happens. And when you bring the hammer down on people who are unequivocally harassers, it is important that you do so in a way that's fair and not subject to recharacterization as unjust later, when no one who was there is a part of the conversation. A great many good people being uncomfortable is unfortunate, but I also think it's a sign of the kind of cognitive dissonance that I experienced before playing with my wife. I had never experienced anything other than the usual toxicity, so I naively assumed that it couldn't be that prevalent. The fact that a CoC feels like overkill is, perhaps, evidence for the proposition that the problem with harassment is much more real than it might feel to those of us who are not targets of harassment. And the kind of people who will harass someone so shamelessly are exactly the kind of people who will boldly lie about not being given a reason for their discipline, or who will loudly complain about the rules not being explicit, even though it's incredibly obvious to everyone present that their behavior was beyond the pale. The edge cases are edge cases, and unfortunate, but I don't believe most cases are edge cases.

vkgfx 6y ago
I see the same thing in CS:GO. Then people wonder why no women stick with it long enough to go pro.
baobabKoodaa 6y ago

frereubu 6y ago

The Tyranny of Structurelessness is an HN perennial, but I think you would do well to read it if you haven't before: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm CoCs are problematic like much of lived human experience, but they're better than a structureless void that allows people to discriminate without a formal process that makes sure they can be held to account.

Yetanfou 6y ago

I'll try to refine your argument a bit: codes of conduct have tended to become a distraction because of the sudden onslaught of such from a specific, highly politicised group of people who have used the opportunity to try to enforce their way of looking at the world upon others by getting their 'code of conduct' - which reads like a political pamphlet - adopted by a number of high-visibility projects. Having a code of conduct in itself does not need to be distracting as long as that code is politically neutral and above all short and concise. A good example of such a code of conduct is the following: don't be a jerk Everybody knows what this means. Nearly everybody will agree on how to behave.

wvenable 6y ago
> don't be a jerk I disagree. This whole situation with Jeremy is because of vague rules just like this. If I tell you that you are "wrong", you might consider me to be "jerk" and we can do this whole song and dance. What communities are trying to police and prevent is outright sexism, racism, etc. For that, being explicit is better than just offering that someone is "being a jerk".
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  Nope, being wrong is not being a jerk, this used to be common sense and is what we need to go back to. Feel free to change the wording on the proposed CoC from don't be a jerk to don't be an asshole or something similar, the end result should still be the same: most people will understand what is meant. Some people won't but that can not be helped. The more elaborate the code, the more it will be used for other purposes, Fewer words is also possible but even in the total absence of a code of conduct most communities - 4chan et al excluded - will still have the unspoken assumption to not be a jerk. Having this encoded in a code of conduct at least makes sure those other, politically motivated 'codes' do not get a foothold.
  - wvenable 6y ago
    I don't know how you can make this argument when this exact situation is caused by the very thing you are advocating for. “Be welcoming”, “Be considerate”, and “Be friendly” is something most people understand as much as "asshole" and "jerk". And yet here we are -- the counterexample is literally this topic.

ookdatnog 6y ago

Yet you are here, on HN, a forum with a code of conduct (they're called guidelines but the commenting rules constitute a CoC), and this CoC is enforced firmly. I don't mean this in a snarky "get outta here" way, but: why are you here? Why not any other forum, tech-related or otherwise? Why not 4chan? Whatever the reason is, is the answer not quite likely to be at least in part made possible by the CoC and its strict enforcement?

baobabKoodaa 6y ago
You treat it like a coincidence that HN guidelines are called "guidelines" instead of "Code of Conduct". I don't think it's a coincidence. I think there's a certain kind of ethos behind behind any "Code of Conduct" process, and that ethos is not present on HN. And I'm really happy about that. I think HN moderation is amazing and it allows for conversations that you couldn't have anywhere else on the web.