On 09/22/2016 04:54 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:12 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
> <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>> If there is a code of conduct, the dispute resolution process looks like
>> this: “What you did is *exactly* what is forbidden by the code of
>> conduct, so you are wrong. Case closed.”
>  ... which means (implies) a number things, both of which are
> sufficiently serious problems such that i fundamentally disagree that
> a CoC should be present:
>  (1) there has to *be* a set and pre-thought-out definition -
> associated directly with the project - in list form - some of the most
> horrible, aggressive and generally obnoxious forms of behaviour ever
> known to man.  to even have such a list of "don't"s has been
> demonstrated time and time again to be an extremely bad idea.
>  (2) the list *is* a set list... it can only be incomplete, thus
> defeating the object and purpose of *having* the list in the first
> place.
>  (3) the list is an open invitation to attack the purpose of the
> project by way of those definitions (that's if people read it in the
> first place)
>  (4) as mentioned in the previous message, anyone who *doesn't* read
> it will just attack anyway.
>  thus we can see that having any "list" of "conduct which does not
> conform to the quotes code quotes" is not just useless, it's *far
> worse* than useless, it actually brings down the entire tone of the
> project.
>  have you ever heard of "victim mentality"?  it's where people FEAR
> something... and thus INVITE people to attack them on precisely that
> which they fear.  examples include people walking down the street
> looking afraid, clutching their handbag: any mugger in the vicinity
> will instantly go "ah ha!  someone has something to hide that they
> fear losing!  it must be valuable!  ATTACK!!!!"
>  a "Code of Conduct" is therefore an OPEN INVITATION for people to attack.
>  so i'll say it again, so it's really really clear: there will be *NO*
> "code of conduct" deployed for ANYTHING related to EOMA68 over which i
> have any direct responsibility and/or authority.
>> With just the bill of ethics,
>> you may have a discussion on whether it really causes a distraction or
>> whether the victim should just accept it instead of making a fuss. Now
>> that discussion may have the same result, but it is more demanding on
>> everyone, especially the victim.
>  are you talking about the ethical violator considering themselves to
> be the "victim"?  or are you referring to the people whom the ethical
> violator may have adversely affected (by having had their Truth, Love,
> Awareness or Creativity reduced by the ethical violator)?
>  if you are referring to the person (or persons) who have had T.L.A.C.
> reduced (in direct violation of the Bill of Ethics) as "victims", then
> firstly that's not an appropriate term to use (in the context of the
> Bill of Ethics), but secondly even if you did consider them to *be*
> victims, if they make a stand and say "scuse me but there's been a
> reduction in my T.L.A.C and it's relevant to this project" then
> immediately it becomes possible to take appropriate action.
>  when we think of people as "victims", what it actually means is -
> don't be too shocked by this, it's hinted at above by the well-known
> phrase "Victim Mentality" - that they *invited* that attack.  it is
> within *their* mind-set to *be* victimISED.
>  this may sound really really shocking and cruel, but it's not.  i
> won't go into detail on a spiritual level or make any references which
> i would normally do in private conversations as it might be totally
> misunderstood, so we'll keep it to the "logical and rational".
>  now, does this mean that just because someone has within their
> mindset a feeling of "victimisation" that people *should* attack them?
>  of course not!  but, people being what they are, opposites attract:
> they often cannot help themselves, so they ATTACK.
>  can we BLAME both parties for the resultant mess? NO we cannot.
>  can we HELP both parties?  mmm.... maybe.  that's down to them.
>  should we weigh the pro's and con's of getting both the "victim" and
> the "attacker" to on the one hand stop being a "victim" and likewise
> the other to stop being an "attacker"?  yes we should.
>  why should we do that assessment (even before and even over-and-above
> assessing exactly what it was that they did)
>  because it may turn out that, even though both parties
> (independently) may have some extremely valuable contribution to the
> set goal, *BOTH* parties (independently) may feel that their goal "use
> this project as an excuse to be a victim" and "use this project as an
> excuse to be an attacker" is *MORE* important (independently) to them
> than the goal that they declared, contractually, to be a part of.
> (in other words, each of the parties CONTRACTUALLY failed - when they
> signed up to the "Bill of Ethics" to comprehend the nature of what it
> was that they were signing and agreeing to.  the goal IS the goal.
> there is NO other goal.  and extending the goal to include "personal
> bitch-fest -ism related attacks on other people" *AUTOMATICALLY*
> constitutes violation of the contract by way of endeavouring to expand
> the goal without the consent of the other signatories to the
> contract).
>  thus, if one, other, or BOTH parties - regardless of "quotes who did
> what quotes" refuses to apologise and/or adapt and/or prioritise the
> goal *over and above* whatever grievances they might have, we might
> end up activating the clause in the Bill of Ethics which excludes
> (ejects) one, the other, or BOTH parties!
>  obviously, the favourable outcome is that they both say "oops, sorry,
> won't do it again, will focus properly on the goal now, we both
> promise"...
>  now.  do you know of *any* "Code of Conduct" that can be this
> flexible, this forgiving, and yet be so basic and fundamental, all at
> the same time?  because i certainly don't!  the "Code of Conduct" that
> you referred to is a *horrible* document when viewed in light of the
> above!  it *reaffirms* the status of the person being attacked,
> reinforces that status, does *nothing* to help them out of the mindset
> which caused them to be attacked, it does *nothing* for the attacker,
> aside from ostracising them from one group, where they will quite
> likely just find another, and many many other flaws which to be honest
> i just want to stop enumerating them because even just one of those
> flaws is enough for me to say ABSOLUTELY NOT: the fact that i can,
> after all this analysis, find not one but SIX separate distinct
> fundamentally fatal and completely intolerable flaws...
>  so. can you now *finally* see how completely fundamentally flawed any
> kind of "Code of Conduct" document is going to be, compared to any
> document similar to the "Bill of Ethics"?
>  a similar analogy would be, in terms of SQL-related design, is that
> Code of Conduct Documents are "2nd Normalised Form" (look it up if
> you're not familiar with that).  the Bill of Ethics is "3rd Normalised
> Form", and the definition of an "Ethical Act" would be "4th Normalised
> Form".
>  i operate at the level of "3rd to 4th normalise form".  where i need
> "2nd normalised form" i typically write code generators.  however i
> have found that every single automated code-generator has problems
> (many of them fundamental and inherently flawed at the design level),
> and i have had to resort to using weakly-typed languages (python for
> example) and to go to 3rd normalised form that performs on-demand SQL
> (or other code) generation.
>  interestingly i very very rarely program at the 4th normalised form
> level: it's too much hassle :)
> l.

We need not continue this discussion and could instead wait and see. It
hopefully will not ever matter. I fear taking away too much of your time
when you have more urgent things to do.

But I am still unconvinced; let me list the points of disagreement
and/or possible misunderstandings:

possible misunderstanding:
A code of conduct is – unlike the bill of ethics – not even meant to be
complete and *not* intended as a replacement for the bill of ethics. It
is more like when there is precedent for a decision so when the
circumstances are the same, a decision is simple and no discussion is
needed. (Yes, some communities use the CoC for more than a list of
uncontroversial statements; this is not what I am asking for.)

possible misunderstanding:
Yes, a code of conduct is not a panacea; there will still be bad people
and there will still be trolls. It is only meant to help in *some* cases.

possible misunderstanding:
A code of conduct just (for the issues it covers) makes clear who is in
the wrong. A punishment need not be specified and need not be harsh.

Having a list of very general bad things does *not* make people do bad
things. A code of conduct is not like a list of unpatched security
vulnerabilities. There are codes of conduct that have been refined time
and again to not contain bad things.

More importantly, when it comes to harassment, the harassment is always
inappropriate no matter what the victim of the harassment did. Often
victims don’t make a legitimate complaint because they fear victim
blaming. By victim I mean the victim of a concrete act (with “T.L.A.C.
reduced”), not that the person is always a victim.

arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Reply via email to