3 ms·
https://archive.is/cMKRb https://archive.is/cMKRb > At Carnegie Mellon, for example, an NCO can be obtained by anyone who claims to be “the recipient of persis
by rdtsc 1y ago
https://archive.is/cMKRb https://archive.is/cMKRb
> At Carnegie Mellon, for example, an NCO can be obtained by anyone who claims to be “the recipient of persistent unwanted or harassing contact by another student” and includes “indirect contact through third parties.”
> NCOs requested by one student after her roommate allegedly stole her bagels, by participants in a group project gone awry, by members of rival student organizations caught up in a dispute and by aggrieved parties in a social-media skirmish.
So you just have to make something up. I am not too surprised there. It's not like prestigious University students somehow select only honest and moral students, they'll get all kinds of characters.
What is surprising is the administrators. Nobody thought of this potential for abuse. Were they so naive?
I wonder if being in the same course means a "contact". If that's the case, the most "enterprising" students could be using these to simply block students from the same courses. Sometimes registrations are competitive and there are not enough slots. How can you ensure you have a spot? -- file a bunch of NCOs against people in the same major and then as soon as it comes time to sign up, tell the administration to kick them out because of NCOs. Now what if the NCOs are mutual? Things can get interesting. Who is forced to drop out of the class then? Maybe flip a coin, or each NCO gets a score for "gravity". The more grave on wins and force the other party to yield.
- xigoi 1y ago> What is surprising is the administrators. Nobody thought of this potential for abuse. Were they so naive? In woke politics, implying that anti-harassment policies can be abused is a mortal sin.
- rdtsc 1y agoI call that the zealotry ratchet. The way it works is someone with more radical views can propose some stricter policies to the particular org. If the general group loosely aligns with that ideology, they'll always publicly agree. If they disagree, they'll be pointed at and accused of being a traitor, infidel, some kind of -ist and so on. So, in private participants can understand the policy will lead to disaster, but there is no way they'll say anything publicly. Then, it looks like there is unanimous support and the proposal passes. That's one crank of the ratchet. If that worked, there is the next crank and so on.