On 09/23/2016 03:55 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:29 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
> <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>> We need not continue this discussion and could instead wait and see.
>  no, i will not be waiting and seeing.   there is absolutely no
> contest.  CoCs are, from the comprehensive analysis that i've done,
> extremely dangerous and toxic documents.  i was not joking when i said
> that each of the flaws in the concept of a CoC is so fundamental as to
> *on their own* place them well beyond the possibility of deployment.
> that i could find *six* such fundamental and fatal flaws makes a CoC
> almost a joke.

I am disagreeing with each of the six. Some I think are due to
misunderstanding. My five points cover all six of yours.

>> It hopefully will not ever matter.
>  it 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.
>  then it is completely useless.  if it doesn't cover *all* cases, it's
> utterly and completely useless.  it's like placing a series of gates
> (with no walls) around your stash of gold.  now expand that to
> multi-dimensional space.

No, a hammer is still useful even if bare hands cover more 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.
>  declaring that someone is "in the wrong" even before the analyisis
> has been done *is* itself wrong.  what if it turns out, especially as
> has happened with Julian Assange and with the Tor group that the
> accusations - the "victims" - were outright liars, involved in
> entrapment?

A CoC is useful when the accused says “it wasn’t wrong”. It is not
useful when the accused says “I didn’t do it”.

>  having a code of conduct paints a huge target on a project, saying
> "here's how you are GUARANTEED to disrupt this project" by having a
> comprehensive and detailed list to work from, where you *know* that
> they're going to treat the "victim" as being "in the right" no matter
> what.

Security by obscurity does not work here. Trolls already know how to troll.

>  a code of conduct is a knee-jerk "no thought, analysis or compassion
> required" reaction, florian.  they're DANGEROUS documents.

A CoC makes clear what the issue is. Analysis may still be required for
how to deal with it.

>> disagreement:
>> Having a list of very general bad things does *not* make people do bad
>> things.
>  oh yes it does.  you've probably never experienced that, but i have.
> to give you an example: have you heard about when Mother Theresa was
> invited to a "War Rally"?  do you know what her response was?   she
> said, "no thanks.... but if you invite me to a PEACE Rally i'll be
> there".
>  in other words, when you start talking about PROTESTING -ISMs, guess
> what happens?  up pops aaalllll the people who want an opportunity to
>  so NO.  there will be NO INVITATION TO ATTACK placed on ANY project
> associated with EOMA.
>> disagreement:
>> 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.
>  please research the concept "victim mentality" more thoroughly.

I’m not saying the harassed person cannot have done something wrong as
well, but the harasser is always wrong. I still believe this to be true.

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

Reply via email to