
The Code Of Conduct - craigkerstiens
http://jessenoller.com/blog/2012/12/7/the-code-of-conduct
======
fleitz
Codes of Conduct are always good, zero-tolerance polices on the other hand are
usually a bit extreme.

What starts out as well intentioned zero-tolerance policy usually ends up in
absurdity. Like zero-tolerance policies in schools that started as banning
weapons and now prevent students from bringing meals that need to be eaten
with knife and fork. Hopefully they are able to keep the zero-tolerance policy
to mean what everyone thinks it means now.

~~~
jnoller
I've got two kids in school. I know the pain of the inane zero tolerance
policies such as those. However, harassment in any form, when corroborated, is
just unacceptable.

~~~
eikenberry
> "harassment in any form"

This is the crux of the main problem with zero tolerance stances. That "in any
form" gets interpreted in the widest possible way possible beyond the point of
absurdity. This is because it is an absolute stance in a realm which is
inherently subjective and relative to the various points of view involved.

> "when corroborated"

I think this helps with this a bit, as it requires at least one (hopefully
more) other subjective view on whether it was harassment or not. Hopefully it
will be enough.

------
tomjen3
I wonder if this kind of thing would stand up in court? Is it even legal to
expulse people with no refund when the guidelines are vague?

Personally I don't go to conferences for the same reasons I don't go to
concerts -- too expensive when video is much better -- but I would be pissed
if they threw me out for not measuring up to the arbitrary standards of some
random enforcer of political correctness or for (horror) talking to girls in
an elevator.

~~~
unalone
Oof, you're getting downvoted right from the get-go. I disagree with your
stance, but better to talk about this than to just blindly vote you into
oblivion.

First, yes, it's legal to throw people out of a private event for any reason
you'd like. They can be mad at _you_ for your vagueness, but being vague isn't
a crime. ("Thank god!" say a thousand programmers and designers who've been
forced to make presentations or give speeches – I kid, I kid.)

Second, your little "for (horror) talking to girls in an elevator" struck me
as a snotty little dig at a serious issue. I know that you're most likely
taking a shot at the Rebecca Watson affair
[[http://www.metafilter.com/105214/the-existence-of-greater-
cr...](http://www.metafilter.com/105214/the-existence-of-greater-crimes-does-
not-excuse-lesser-crimes)], but some users might not, and your snideless
passes over the complications involved in that incident.

Would you say that men, all men, take it for granted that they know how women
feel about possible male aggression in private situations, especially late at
night? That they know women have legitimate reasons to be worried about
strange men who confront them, even in a seemingly harmless manner, in private
situations? Would you say that women have a right to speak about their
feelings on this topic, explain why they feel the way that they feel, or even
just vent about how bothered they get by those situations?

Rebecca Watson didn't get anybody "thrown out" of the World Atheist
Convention, she discussed an incident that happened there, and some people got
really bothered that she considered it an incident. It was a complete
flustercuck, not because talking to a woman on an elevator is HORRIBLE RAMPANT
MISOGYNY, but because there are reasons why Watson found the gesture creepy,
and there were many man – from your post, you included – who simply refused to
admit that Watson had any legitimate point whatsoever.

Which is why, by the way, these codes of conduct are necessary. It's not
necessarily that _you_ would do something horribly wrong or alienating or
offensive, but if something as simple as "being hit on at 4am by a strange
man" is still sneered at as a legitimate concern, then probably some people
think they're entitled to far grosser and more outlandish actions as well. And
that means that either women might be actively harassed (possibly even
assaulted), or they'll feel like they're not actually a part of the group, and
then they'll leave, and the community will be immeasurably diminished for
their leaving.

Again, the downvoters were wrong to knock you down – your opinion was relevant
to the discussion and stated concisely – but your attitude here is exactly the
problem which codes of conduct will attempt to enforce. I doubt anybody will
miss your presence at the conferences, or at those expensive concerts for that
matter. Enjoy trying to mosh in your own living room. :-P

~~~
tomjen3
No you are right, I cannot fanthom that anybody could feel threatened by a
geek who talks to her in an elevator, no matter the time.

Stranger rape (as opposed to date rape) is so extreemly rare that it makes the
news when it does happen -- and it will almost certainly not happen in a
conference elevator. Especially when there is a lot of males around -- who are
glamoring for a chance to be the hero.

~~~
wpietri
It really makes me sad to see on HN arguments of the form, "I cannot
understand/perceive X, therefore it is unimportant."

I get that you can't fathom it. But so what? Nobody put you in charge of
deciding when people should feel unsafe. Or whether I should have sympathy for
those who do. Or whether we, as a community, are willing to let a lot of
otherwise useful contributors walk away because they don't feel safe.

I don't want to be a hero. Heroes need villains. I want a good conference,
where everybody feels safe and welcome and we can all focus on learning. And
this seems like a step in the right direction.

~~~
theorique
This reminds me of that Homer Simpson quote:

 _Hey! Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand._

~~~
unalone
Homer Simpson isn't a role model. He's apathetic, stupid, and constantly
convinced that he's more important of a man than he is. In fact, he's more a
critique of that kind of man than an endorsement.

It's telling that Homer's redemptive characteristics are that he's capable of
loving his wife and his children, and through his love, he's willing to
realize that his opinions on things, his actions, are not perfect just because
they're his. He can admit to being wrong; he can start caring; he can grow,
ever-so-slowly, as a man.

~~~
theorique
I'm not suggesting that a person model their behavior after Homer.

The point I'm making in quoting him is that caring and understanding are
distinct axes. You can care/understand, not care/not understand, not
care/understand (Homer), and care/not understand. Each of these ways of being
tends to bring different results.

------
steveklabnik
Thank you for this, Jesse, if you're reading. Python people embarrass us
Rubyists yet again. ;)

~~~
jnoller
Ha. You're welcome.

~~~
sophacles
Seriously Kudos. It makes me sad that you had to put that much effort into an
explanation of something this straight forward, but the result is a very nice,
well-reasoned argument that is hard to argue with.

------
jfc
I'm glad to see this Code of Conduct. Seems to me that most men are unaware of
what women endure in terms of harassment, both from people they know and from
strangers.

Putting everyone on notice that such behavior won't be tolerated is a big step
in the right direction.

------
smoyer
"D stands for Diversity"

It's a shame that has to even be stated ... the articles we've been seeing are
related to technical events. How about we attempt to show each other a modicum
of respect and argue the technical points without getting personal? And what
place is there for harassment in polite society? My gramma often noted that it
doesn't cost you anything to be polite or friendly.

