Hacker News Reader

Comment by jayess | Hacker News Reader

> The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks Public or private harassment Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

These sorts of terms are impossible to define, so the decision to ban people comes down to personal, subjective interpretation. In the name of setting standards, there are no standards at all.

View on HN

Only in the sense that everything is subject to personal interpretation of those who are responsible for enforcing a set of rules.

But wouldn't you agree that it's generally better to have a set of pretty clear guidelines that might not always be watertight, versus an _entirely_ personal, subjective set of inscrutable rules?

Maybe, but these guidelines are anything but clear.

On the contrary, these guidelines seem to be entirely clear, generally benign, and completely in-line with the general behaviour that anybody would expect in a professional environment.

Of course there are grey areas. There inevitably are with any set of guidelines. But what do you realistically expect them to contain? An itemised list of every action which is allowed or proscribed?

Instead, these are a general set of guidelines as to how a community should conduct itself – subject as any are to interpretation by those with influence – but a useful reference nonetheless. I'm frankly baffled at the idea that people find this hard to grasp.

If you need a judiciary, you had better build it well. You already have one: the granted by the Law.

...

I dont see "pretty clear guidelines". I see an attempt to regulate complex human behaviour in a one dimensional document. it does not consider culture, tradition and upbringing in different regions. a friendly comment in one culture could be seen as unwelcoming or even sexist in another.

the same with "Focusing on what is best for the community" .. there is no single "best" and no single "community". its a melting pot of cultures, countries and people. what benefits one might not benefit the others.

this CoC is just an attempt to regulate what you cant regulate. maybe just replace it with "dont be an idiot, respect others and assume good intentions".

a friendly comment in one culture could be seen as unwelcoming or even sexist in another.

It could be. That's why subjective interpretation and reasonableness are concepts.

there is no single "best" and no single "community"

There is clearly a single community by any reasonable definition – diffuse though it may be. The role of a set of guidelines is to establish what behaviour that community has generally decided is acceptable or not acceptable. We accept this kind of moderation guideline all of the time.

maybe just replace it with "dont be an idiot, respect others and assume good intentions".

Yeah, that's basically what it says in a little bit more detail, and with a few more examples. So where's the issue?

the issue is with people who will follow the CoC to the letter. who will interpret something one says so it fits the CoC definition and will ask for their heads.

just look at the stuff happening to Theodore Ts’o https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504

In any non-politically-charged scenario, I might agree. Unfortunately, CoCs too often end up being a screen for abusers to hide behind. I have witnessed large projects adopt CoCs, then turn around and selectively apply them to people who express "wrong" ideas (either in code, issue trackers or on Twitter in unrelated discussions).

In this case, I'd prefer to either have something more objective, or nothing at all for such abusive people to hide behind.

Yes, it's almost as if a body politic of human beings will have to exercise subjective judgment. Luckily, we humans are both capable of, and justified in, making these kinds of assessments.

How has this never been the case?

This is just being clear about a reality that exists in all communities with moderation standards. Moderation has to be enforced by someone and there isn't always an objective test to determine harassment or trolling. Yet most communities that are successful in the long run have some policy like this, whether explicit or implicit.

> These sorts of terms are impossible to define

As described in the article by a CoC critic, it used to be:

"only whether their code was good"

Not exactly a shining example of clearly defined, objective, universal judgement. Of course, back then it could really "if Linus thinks their code is good", which is a lot more clear. But that time has passed.

The CoC tries to address the problem where people ARE in fact being excluded or lost by the Linux community, in less visible and obvious ways than a straight ban, for reasons equally less visible and obvious, but no less real.

You may or may not believe that this happens, that this is a problem, that the CoC helps or doesn't help with this problem, and even that the net effect of the CoC is positive or negative.

One way or the other people are lost to the linux kernel development by what actually matters is which ones provide the best code.

Is Sage Sharp contributing better code to the linux kernel than Theo Ts’o ? Would you replace all Ts'o contributions by Sharp's ?

Rules without values are indeed no better than no rules at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com