Re: [Origami] CoC—Being Too Specific in Language
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:16 AM John Scully wrote: > How is this enforced? > > > > Only timely and directly reports of violations with sufficient factual > details to the Conference can be investigated. Upon investigation, > allegations may result in sanctions including, but not limited to expulsion > from the Conference and Venue without recourse. Any report deemed to have > not been made in good faith or with a reasonable factual basis shall be > treated as a violation. Investigations and sanctions imposed shall be > conducted and determined in the sole discretion of the Conference. Nothing > in this Standard of Conduct interferes with or discourages a Participant > from exercising his or her right to contact the Venue and/or law > enforcement directly and in such a case; the Conference shall fully > cooperate with the Venue and law enforcement. > > > While this simplified Code of Conduct does have some benefits, one thing that I would say is missing is confidentiality for people reporting violations. Without that type of provision, some people will be unwilling to come forward due to fear of reprisals from the accused or friends of the accused. There is a good video (with transcript) that goes into great detail about Codes of Conduct and specifically touches on confidentiality as well as enumeration. https://the-orbit.net/lousycanuck/2014/02/08/ftbcon2-sexual-harassment-law-and-you-with-full-transcript-ftbcon thanks, malachi
Re: [Origami] CoC—Being Too Specific in Language
If you followed some of the other posts from yesterday, Anne posted a link to a very interesting page on common mistakes in CoC writing, including this specific issue: That an enumerated list of “don’ts” has legal issues. Which was one of my essential objections. That page also has a good example CoC that I think is great. If you missed her email – here is the link https://www.codemag.com/article/1601021/Legal-Notes-Code-of-Conduct It is worth reading. It is short but bakes very clear and strong arguments about a better CoC. >From the intro para of that page: “ I believe codes of conduct for any event, whether it’s a software conference, convention, or sporting event, etc., is a good idea. At the same time, I don’t believe an event’s worthwhileness turns on the presence or absence of a code of conduct. If you’re going to implement a code of conduct, it needs to be reasonable, clear in its intent, and, above all, enforceable. In addition, before you decide to implement a code of conduct, you should be clear about the potential liability that can be incurred as a result of implementing such a code. “ In the section about enumerated lists: “First, there is a pattern of having enumerated lists to define entities. In the first paragraph, it was the list of persons covered. In this paragraph, it’s a list of protected traits. Whenever there are lists such as these, they become words of limitation, meaning that if something is not contained in the list and there was an opportunity to have a more inclusive list, there’s a strong argument that the omitted term was not meant to be covered.” He also speaks to the “actions”. Stating that some action WILL be taken is an issue, as not all reports should result in any action, much less drastic action. He suggests promising investigation, wit appropriate action to be taken. Again – here is the text of his suggestion – obviously this needs fleshing out for the “origami convention specifics” such as not disrupting class, not touching someone’s model without asking etc. But at it’s core it is along the lines of what I was suggesting – work from the assumption that we all KNOW what is civil vs uncivil behavior and just refer to that. We have to discuss this more on this end, but we are likely going to end up with something very closely based on the below. John P.S. Again – Thank you Anne. I had looked around but had not found anything like this. Who is covered? Anyone who is affiliated with this Conference (The “Participant”) is expected to conduct oneself in a civil manner and treat any other Participant with respect and civility. (The “Standard of Conduct”). A Participant includes, but is not limited to any Conference attendee, guest, sponsor, or staff. What is covered? The Standard of Conduct is defined by what is deemed to be generally accepted by the Conference; the conference location (the ”Venue”); the Venue’s own standards of conduct, rules and regulations; or any legal authority of which the Venue or Participant is subject. Any other conduct by a Participant that otherwise disrupts another Participant’s Conference experience shall be covered as well. How is this enforced? Only timely and directly reports of violations with sufficient factual details to the Conference can be investigated. Upon investigation, allegations may result in sanctions including, but not limited to expulsion from the Conference and Venue without recourse. Any report deemed to have not been made in good faith or with a reasonable factual basis shall be treated as a violation. Investigations and sanctions imposed shall be conducted and determined in the sole discretion of the Conference. Nothing in this Standard of Conduct interferes with or discourages a Participant from exercising his or her right to contact the Venue and/or law enforcement directly and in such a case; the Conference shall fully cooperate with the Venue and law enforcement. From: Origami On Behalf Of Carol Martinson Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 6:31 PM To: The Origami Mailing List Subject: Re: [Origami] CoC—Being Too Specific in Language Malachi, While that is worded differently than what the library had in the same category, to me it appears fine. Apparently the problem is my misunderstanding what we each meant by the words “exact” and “specific”. I apologize for misinterpreting your overall intent. Carol Martinson Sent from my iPad On May 17, 2021, at 1:02 PM, Malachi Brown mailto:malac...@gmail.com> > wrote: On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM Carol Martinson via Origami mailto:origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> > wrote: If I am interpreting what he is trying to say correctly, people need the specific words and actions named so they know what is and is not allowed. Acceptable behaviors vary widely from culture to culture so they may need s
Re: [Origami] CoC—Being Too Specific in Language
hmm. no, not concerned that it will scare people away. concerned that it may generate other issues. but the reality is that since there are so few incidents of any kind it is not that likely to come into play in any way. I suppose it is more a matter of principal than anything else. Sent from my iPhone > On May 17, 2021, at 8:56 PM, Malachi Brown wrote: > > >> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 5:50 PM John Scully >> wrote: > >> The problem (in my and many other’s opinion) >> > > I suggest that, at least in this conversation, we frame things as our own > opinions and avoid using nonspecific "others" to lend gravity to our point of > view. I am sure you know plenty of people who agree with you and you also > know plenty who would disagree with you. > > This is not a popularity contest or an election. This is a discussion to > figure out what kind of policies can be put in place to handle incidents of > harassment in a way that is safe for the victim and that is welcoming to a > broader audience. > > The answer to most of your other questions is that it is up to the event > organizers as to what what constitutes a "good" Code of Conduct and then it > is up to potential attendees to decide if it is something they are > comfortable with. > > Is your concern that having a Code of Conduct will scare away more attendees > than it might reassure and attract? > > malachi
Re: [Origami] CoC—Being Too Specific in Language
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 5:50 PM John Scully wrote: > The problem (in my and many other’s opinion) > I suggest that, at least in this conversation, we frame things as our own opinions and avoid using nonspecific "others" to lend gravity to our point of view. I am sure you know plenty of people who agree with you and you also know plenty who would disagree with you. This is not a popularity contest or an election. This is a discussion to figure out what kind of policies can be put in place to handle incidents of harassment in a way that is safe for the victim and that is welcoming to a broader audience. The answer to most of your other questions is that it is up to the event organizers as to what what constitutes a "good" Code of Conduct and then it is up to potential attendees to decide if it is something they are comfortable with. Is your concern that having a Code of Conduct will scare away more attendees than it might reassure and attract? malachi
Re: [Origami] CoC—Being Too Specific in Language
Malachi, While that is worded differently than what the library had in the same category, to me it appears fine. Apparently the problem is my misunderstanding what we each meant by the words “exact” and “specific”. I apologize for misinterpreting your overall intent. Carol Martinson Sent from my iPad > On May 17, 2021, at 1:02 PM, Malachi Brown wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM Carol Martinson via Origami > wrote: >> If I am interpreting what he is trying to say correctly, people need the >> specific words and actions named so they know what is and is not allowed. >> Acceptable behaviors vary widely from culture to culture so they may need >> specific actions listed to know what is expected. > > I believe you misunderstood what I was trying to say or I am misunderstanding > what you are trying to say. > > I think, at least for an event CoC, there is a balance that can be struck > between the very vague and open to interpretation "don't be a jerk" and the > overly specific enumeration of all words and actions that qualify as > harassment. > > I specifically referenced the OUSA CoC because it does enumerate several > types of discrimination that are specifically prohibited which gives the > person reading it an understanding of what is not acceptable. I don't think > specific words or actions need to be spelled out, but that it is useful to > know what areas are covered by the policy. > > So, maybe we can clarify this point. From the OUSA CoC, do you consider the > following to be overly specific? > > * offensive communication related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, > physical appearance, body size, race, religion, and age. > * use of sexist, racist, ableist, or any other discriminatory or exclusionary > language. > > thanks, > malachi
Re: [Origami] CoC—Being Too Specific in Language
The problem (in my and many other’s opinion) with “use of sexist, racist, ableist, or any other discriminatory or exclusionary language” is that those terms are open to wildly varying interpretation. What person X considers normal speech, person Y considers offensive. Who is the judge? Remember my specific example – we were asked last year to tell people in the welcome meeting at the convention that they should not use gender pronouns AT ALL, because “someone may be offended, even if not part of that conversation”. And what is “exclusionary language”? Talk about an overly broad term! I just read a paper on that…some good points. A lot of crazy ones…wait! That was one right there! “Never use the word crazy even in reference to yourself “That makes me crazy” because someone who has issues with mental health may take offense” This paper lists about 200 very, very common words and phrases that “should be purged from all language”. Too far…too far. Plus, there is a difference between using language that should be expected to cause offense (obvious example, using the “n-word”) and using standard language, telling a joke, doing the standard guy thing of insulting your friends… Now…MAYBE add in intent there. As in “use of sexist, racist, ableist, or any other discriminatory language with the intention to cause offense”. That is still subject to interpretation, but allows some common sense to be applied. Examples: “I overheard person X talking to person Y and they used CIS gender pronouns!” Answer “Yup. Nothing wrong with that. Sorry you got offended, but people are allowed to do that” Vs “I asked person X to please address me as ZZZ, but he then continued to deliberately address me as XXX even when I reminded him”. Sounds like that was deliberate, we will speak to him and ask him to address you the way you want or just not converse with you. Vs “I asked person X to please address me as ZZZ, but then he occasionally addressed me as XXX”. Sounds like he was trying, but he has known you for 20 years and he is forgetting. Perhaps YOU should politely remind him, since it sounds like it is accidental” See what I mean? A “use of blah blah language” means you are telling people to change their speech habits in toto, no matter who they are conversing with. It does not matter that that is not YOUR intent when suggesting the language, that is how some people will try to apply it. John Scully From: Origami On Behalf Of Malachi Brown Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 1:16 PM To: The Origami Mailing List Subject: Re: [Origami] CoC—Being Too Specific in Language On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM Carol Martinson via Origami mailto:origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> > wrote: If I am interpreting what he is trying to say correctly, people need the specific words and actions named so they know what is and is not allowed. Acceptable behaviors vary widely from culture to culture so they may need specific actions listed to know what is expected. I believe you misunderstood what I was trying to say or I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. I think, at least for an event CoC, there is a balance that can be struck between the very vague and open to interpretation "don't be a jerk" and the overly specific enumeration of all words and actions that qualify as harassment. I specifically referenced the OUSA CoC because it does enumerate several types of discrimination that are specifically prohibited which gives the person reading it an understanding of what is not acceptable. I don't think specific words or actions need to be spelled out, but that it is useful to know what areas are covered by the policy. So, maybe we can clarify this point. From the OUSA CoC, do you consider the following to be overly specific? * offensive communication related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, and age. * use of sexist, racist, ableist, or any other discriminatory or exclusionary language. thanks, malachi
Re: [Origami] CoC—Being Too Specific in Language
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM Carol Martinson via Origami < origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> wrote: > If I am interpreting what he is trying to say correctly, people need the > specific words and actions named so they know what is and is not allowed. > Acceptable behaviors vary widely from culture to culture so they may need > specific actions listed to know what is expected. > I believe you misunderstood what I was trying to say or I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. I think, at least for an event CoC, there is a balance that can be struck between the very vague and open to interpretation "don't be a jerk" and the overly specific enumeration of all words and actions that qualify as harassment. I specifically referenced the OUSA CoC because it does enumerate several types of discrimination that are specifically prohibited which gives the person reading it an understanding of what is not acceptable. I don't think specific words or actions need to be spelled out, but that it is useful to know what areas are covered by the policy. So, maybe we can clarify this point. From the OUSA CoC, do you consider the following to be overly specific? * offensive communication related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, and age. * use of sexist, racist, ableist, or any other discriminatory or exclusionary language. thanks, malachi
