On 09/23/2016 03:55 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:29 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@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 PROTEST -ISMs.
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.