3 ms·

At some point we will collectively realize that the average organization cannot and should not act as a judicial body. Running a fair, competent and accountabl

At some point we will collectively realize that the average organization cannot and should not act as a judicial body. Running a fair, competent and accountable court is really hard, and to think otherwise is hubris at best, and unbridled ideology at worst. Edit: apologies for the multiple edits. It sometimes takes me a few tries to precisely express my thoughts.

wskinner 6y ago
This is the real issue. CoC proponents seem to think writing down the correct rules is sufficient. But rules are only as good or bad as their enforcement.
- xenadu02 6y ago
  CoCs didn't jump out of the void for no reason. They are a response to years of harassment and unprofessional behavior at conferences. Conferences have always had a list of rules to follow and breaking the rules could get you ejected from the conference. In theory all a CoC should do is codify some bad behaviors that people believe to be acceptable but are actually not, so in that regard they shouldn't be controversial. You hit the nail on the head though: if the people enforcing the conference rules don't act in good faith or don't follow the rules then the rules don't matter. In theory a conference could just have a rule that says "act professionally" and if properly enforced that would be sufficient. On the flip side such a conference could have a petty tyrant rules lawyer for an enforcer and decide anyone they don't like was not acting "professionally". There is no outside body that could (or should) be adjudicators. Conferences live and die by their reputation. All we can do is judge them by their actions.
  - omginternets 6y ago
    I think I agree with your points on the surface, but disagree with (what I presume to be) your implications. It sounds like you're arguing that the current system is somehow a step forward. I very much question that. To your point, CoCs are not really the issue. The issue is that CoCs and their subsequent enforcement are often advanced by ideological zealots engaging in witch hunts. I don't see how that is in any way an improvement over the status quo. I see no evidence that suggests these zealots are able to effectively deal with real harassment when it happens, either. >All we can do is judge them by their actions. Quite right.

wskinner 6y ago

This is the real issue. CoC proponents seem to think writing down the correct rules is sufficient. But rules are only as good or bad as their enforcement.

xenadu02 6y ago
CoCs didn't jump out of the void for no reason. They are a response to years of harassment and unprofessional behavior at conferences. Conferences have always had a list of rules to follow and breaking the rules could get you ejected from the conference. In theory all a CoC should do is codify some bad behaviors that people believe to be acceptable but are actually not, so in that regard they shouldn't be controversial. You hit the nail on the head though: if the people enforcing the conference rules don't act in good faith or don't follow the rules then the rules don't matter. In theory a conference could just have a rule that says "act professionally" and if properly enforced that would be sufficient. On the flip side such a conference could have a petty tyrant rules lawyer for an enforcer and decide anyone they don't like was not acting "professionally". There is no outside body that could (or should) be adjudicators. Conferences live and die by their reputation. All we can do is judge them by their actions.
- omginternets 6y ago
  I think I agree with your points on the surface, but disagree with (what I presume to be) your implications. It sounds like you're arguing that the current system is somehow a step forward. I very much question that. To your point, CoCs are not really the issue. The issue is that CoCs and their subsequent enforcement are often advanced by ideological zealots engaging in witch hunts. I don't see how that is in any way an improvement over the status quo. I see no evidence that suggests these zealots are able to effectively deal with real harassment when it happens, either. >All we can do is judge them by their actions. Quite right.