7 ms·
Reasonable Person Principle
- daft_pink 2y agoI wish more code of conducts were written like this.
- cryptonector 2y agoNo no, we must make endless lists of specific behaviors we want and don't want.
- dartharva 2y agoimmibis explains why that is better in one of the comment threads above: > The main purpose of a CoC is to point to it when you want to ban someone. It's an accountability sink - instead of saying you want to ban someone, you say you have to ban them because they violated the written rules.
- Terr_ 2y agoThat reminds me of some parenting advice I saw once: Sometimes we do children a disservice when we pretend that some Mysterious Universal Force demands a certain outcome, as if we (the parent) had no agency in setting things up that way or acting as an enforcement-arm. While refusing to own "because I don't want you do" saves argument in the short term, it may burden them with certain habits of thought that aren't so useful in adulthood.
- cryptonector 2y agoYou completely missed that u/immibis was being sardonic.
- immibis 2y agoNot at all. That's exactly how CoCs are used in practice. Have you ever witnessed a CoC-related dispute?
- cryptonector 2y agoIf you're going to be arbitrary then you might as well not use a detailed CoC. Pretending to not be arbitrary when you are being arbitrary just makes you phony and lame.
- immibis 2y agoIf you are overtly arbitrary, people will tell you not to be arbitrary.
- cryptonector 2y agoYour deadpan delivery is really quite good.
- tbrownaw 2y agoBadness must be enumerated.
- anonym29 2y agoFirst enumerated mode of badness: Failure to enumerate badness
- SoftTalker 2y agoSeems very reasonable.
- alphazard 2y agoThis is from a time before CoCs. The part about resolving conflicts with as few resources as possible, as close to the source as possible, seems to be a truism about well functioning (social) systems; really: systems in general. While we're talking about governance problems. This stuck out to me as evidence of a misunderstanding. > It holds that reasonable people strike a suitable balance between their own immediate desires and the good of the community at large. This is just a poor model of how people work; it's important to have a good one if you are designing governance structures. People cater to the greater good only as a means to fulfilling their own selfish desires. Systems that wish this away instead of embracing it are doomed to failure. The system has to put the good of others on the critical path to selfish desires.
- throwaway313373 2y agoSounds like something that an unreasonable person would say.
- brightball 2y agoPersonally, I question the need for CoCs. It seemed they simply started appearing everywhere one day as if following some sort of trend. People organize together everyday in numerous different professional, community and private settings…with no need for a special set of governing rules for behavior.
- immibis 2y agoThe main purpose of a CoC is to point to it when you want to ban someone. It's an accountability sink - instead of saying you want to ban someone, you say you have to ban them because they violated the written rules. The rules, of course, must be written vaguely enough that anyone you might want to ban is violating at least one. It's okay if people you don't want to ban also violate them, because you won't bring it up. It can also be used as an accountability sink in cases where someone clearly should be banned but you don't have enough courage to say you are banning them because you think they should be. In this case you can also point to the rules. However, if the person who should be banned is sneaky enough, he didn't break any of them. You ban him anyway.
- greesil 2y agoNow add a few unreasonable people to the mix, and see what happens to your cultural norms.
- throwaway313373 2y agoThis is the most important part: don't
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- flappyeagle 2y agoWhy would you want to do that
- immibis 2y agoYou thought they were reasonable.
- rectang 2y agoA bracing introduction to the Paradox of Tolerance!
- psyklic 2y agoCaltech's Honor Code is simply: "No member of the Caltech community shall take unfair advantage of any other member of the Caltech community." - https://deans.caltech.edu/HonorCode https://deans.caltech.edu/HonorCode
- JadeNB 2y ago> "No member of the Caltech community shall take unfair advantage of any other member of the Caltech community." That's great, but I wonder why not just: > "No member of the Caltech community shall take unfair advantage of any other person."
- throwaway313373 2y agoIf you insist on following an honor code while competing against people who are ready to take an unfair advantage of you, you lose.
- JadeNB 2y ago> If you insist on following an honor code while competing against people who are ready to take an unfair advantage of you, you lose. "Unfair" is in there. If you are competing against a person who will pull out all the stops against you, then there is nothing unfair about pulling out all the stops against them.
- earleybird 2y agoSo, tit-for-tat?
- JadeNB 2y ago> So, tit-for-tat? That's a reasonable reading, but I think that there is a difference between competition and punishment. In the heat of the competition, I think I am comfortable with the idea that it is permissible to meet the fierceness of your competitor with equal ferocity. If afterwards someone is found to have exceeded their remit and punishment needs to be dealt, then I think that should be governed by a separate ethical principle.
- shitfast 2y ago[flagged]
- two_handfuls 2y ago[flagged]
- shitfast 2y ago[flagged]
- EasyMark 2y ago[flagged]
- two_handfuls 2y ago[flagged]
- SideQuark 2y ago[flagged]
- immibis 2y ago[flagged]
- anonym29 2y ago>People who vote for him, at a minimum, are ok with his behavior. This would suggest that people who voted for Obama are ok with conducting drone strikes against civilian weddings, wouldn't it? I voted for Obama. Obama conducted drone strikes against civilian weddings. I'm not okay with that behavior. I'd still vote for Obama again, given the opportunity.
- cottsak 2y agoCame here with the hope of better understanding how a "reasonable person" is defined and interpreted in legal terms. It's always bothered me that legislation reaches for this "reasonable person" in some enlightened attempt to assume that there is a coherent and uniform definition and interpretation for this. This post didn't help me. I think the standard "it depends" applies here too... as always.
- kaid 2y agoI interpret this as an emphasis on value alignment. In any cooperative context, if we want to advance our goals further, we should carefully consider each participant's needs and find ways to align these needs with the direction of our objective, thus making it a 'common' goal.
- saagarjha 2y agoI'm curious how these two work together: > Everyone expects everyone else to be reasonable. > Do not be offended if someone suggests you are not being reasonable. To me this is something like "assume good faith" but also "others may accuse you of acting in good faith"?