Comment by hamburglar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hamburglar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I can appreciate not liking the brogrammer phenomenon, and not being interested in conferences that are so party-focused, but this guy really has a huge bug up his ass about other people enjoying themselves. "I'm not interested in 'partying hard', I want to talk with like-minded people about subjects I don't necessarily get to talk about at the office." Well, guess what, you can't force people to sit down and talk nodejs with you if they want to drink instead. Sorry the world isn't the way you really really want it to be.

The guy seems to be interpreting a lot of his examples in the worst possible light, too. Example: Q: Is there space set up for hacking? A: We have done this for previous conferences, but to be honest people were having too much social fun to really take advantage of the space. Translation: Y U NO DRINKING!?

That's a stupid translation. They set up hacking space before and very few people used it, so they didn't bother this time. You have your cause and effect backwards if you think this means they're trying to force you to drink.

Or: "Perks for working for them include dental coverage, and 'weekly happy hour'. Those who don't want to participate in getting sloshed regularly... need not apply?"

Jesus, dude, settle down. You've taken a perk of employment and turned it into a statement that if you don't drink you're not welcome? Please let go of your persecution complex. I know it's really fun to be indignant that others encouraging you to have a good time is so totally unfair, but it's really no different than people saying "No seriously, The Wire is fucking fantastic! You have to watch it!"

Interacting with humans isn't that hard if you allow yourself and others to actually act like humans.

> you can't force people to sit down and talk nodejs with you if they want to drink instead.

Apparently, if you give most technical conference attendees the option (and venue, drinks, transport, etc), they will opt for going drinking in environments not suited for conversation. If this happens, I interpret it as a failure of the conference organizers. Why? Because their job is to organize a conference, not a party. If they want to leave some time for people to party (or pray, or go skinny-dipping, or windsurfing, etc.), then they can do so. However, to actively encourage people to be non-networking and to not talk (usefully) about the actual conference topic is, in my view, an anti-pattern of conferences.

Perhaps your idea of what a conference is, and what is well-suited for it, does not mesh with observed reality. Maybe that sort of conference just is not for you (I know your idea of a conference is not for me).

I've got to say though, even heavy drinking has never stopped me from having technical conversations with people, even in crowded bars...

Just as long as there isn't house music blaring. I don't even like that for non-technical socializing. One reason bar owners like the loud music is that it induces people to drink more. If people could hear each other they may get caught up in conversation and not take as many sips of their drinks.

Trust me, I don't like loud noise as much as anybody. I pick my bars accordingly (Yelp is typically pretty good at reporting noise levels, but at an event you can just walk around until you find an appropriate location).

(I think you are reading into my comment something I did not write. I do not know what you think my "idea of a conference" would be.)

I have tried to have technical conversations at parties and in bars with people I know to be interested in and knowledgeable in the topic. It's basically impossible.

Firstly, the loud music and other conversation makes it very hard to hear what they're saying, and the things said therefore tend to be simplified into what can be said simply in short words.

Secondly, they are often drunk and/or more interested in talking about beer or something than the topic they presumably are at the conference to advance. This is, of course, understandable; they're not expecting to have anything whatsoever to do with the conference topic at the party, since nobody else is, either.

Thirdly, there are no whiteboards to use as discussion aids. It's also quite dark, and it's often cramped so you can't easily show somebody something by moving around. Basically, bars and party rooms are not exactly conducive to productive discussions. (In the past there would also be no internet and, further back, no computers, but that has thankfully become a non-issue these days.)

My issue is this line: "Because their job is to organize a conference, not a party."

You are saying that conferences should not be like parties, because conferences are not like parties. You are just using your restricted definition of conference (not like a party) to support what you think a conference should be (not like a party). My take on it is that some conferences empirically do have many similarities to parties. This doesn't make them 'not conferences', so saying "their job is to organize a conference, not a party" is setting up a dichotomy that doesn't actually exist.

If that isn't your sort of conference, then no problem, not everything is for everybody. Personally I prefer more intimate technical conversations over a beer, a bar napkin, and a cellphone than sterile professional presentations in front of a whiteboard. Obviously you do not, and that is perfectly fine as well. There is room in this world for both; there is no reason to discourage one or the other from existing.

> You are saying that conferences should not be like parties, because conferences are not like parties

Not quite.

What I am saying is that conferences and parties have different goals. The goal of a conference is to advance the field. The goal of a party is to have fun. The goal of a conference is not advanced by organizing a party, nor is the goal of a party advanced by organizing a conference.

A conference can (and perhaps should) have many elements of a party in it — evening social activities, perhaps even in a bar where alcolhol (gasp!) is consumed. All of this may be perfectly fine. But, these activities should be organized with the goal of the conference in mind.

However, what many conference organizers seem to do is fill the days with talks, (while minimizing the time between talks to fit as many as possible), and then on the evenings they try to organize the best party they can think of. The best party, mind you, not the best socializing activity, which might have advanced the networking in the field, but the best party, whatever the tastes of the organizers and/or the prospective attendees.

This makes the conference a series of undiscussed talks in the daytime, followed by a series of usually pounding party keggers at night. The talks can be watched at home if they are filmed, and the parties can be had locally, too. There is no reason to attend these kinds of conferences. Unless, of course, you are already connected and go to any number of conferences a year and meet all the same people — your party buddies.

> The goal of a conference is to advance the field. The goal of a party is to have fun. The goal of a conference is not advanced by organizing a party, nor is the goal of a party advanced by organizing a conference.

That is nothing more than your personal take on what a conference should be. The reality is that many conferences aren't like that. It is no skin off your back if other people have a different idea if what a conference should be, and implement their vision of a conference.

Nobody is saying you have to go enjoy a party-like conference, and all I am saying is that you in turn should not tell other people that they shouldn't.

I still think you see me through some kind of tinted shades which makes you think I am saying things I am not saying.

However, I have run out of ideas on how to explain myself in yet other ways.

EDIT: I think now that we are having a word definition debate here. When you say that “many conferences aren't like that“, then I would call those themed parties, not conferences.

You're saying that conferences should not place too much emphasis the party aspects, because that is not the purpose of a conference. Right?

Well I'm saying that I think that is too imposing.

It would be like me saying that bowling alleys should be careful not to place too much emphasis on drinking, because the purpose of a bowling alley is to compete with others at rolling a ball at things. Who am I to say that others shouldn't think that the purpose of bowling is to drink with friends while occasionally rolling a ball around? I shouldn't impose my idea of the purpose of bowling on other people.

I hope it is clear what I mean.

I think you are doing the same faulty comparison you made with board games in another comment. The purpose of all those activities (party, board games, bowling) is to have fun. I'm saying that the very definition of a conference is that it has a different goal. Conferences can (and should, by all means possible) be as fun as possible, but with the goal of the conference taking slight precedence.

Since having a party-like atmosphere will make people come to the conference, by all means conferences should have them. But one should keep in mind that the party-like atmosphere does not obscure or negate the purpose of the conference in the first place.

" I'm saying that the very definition of a conference is that it has a different goal. ... the goal of the conference taking slight precedence."

So long as you realize that this sentence is just a statement your own personal opinion, not some sort of universal truth about conferences, then I don't think we have any issue. The goal, or purpose, of a conference is something for organizers and participants to decide for themselves.

(The answer to "You think maybe I should write a long-winded self-aggrandizing blog post about this culture of exclusion?" is "No you should not jlgreco, because that would make you (even more of) an insufferable cock.")

Well, I guess it comes down to what the definition of “conference” is, I suppose.

Yes. That's why he opened his initial response with "perhaps your idea of what a conference is [...]"

> Apparently, if you give most technical conference attendees the option (and venue, drinks, transport, etc), they will opt for going drinking in environments not suited for conversation.

And your conclusion from this is that conference organizers should give people less of what they want?

Perhaps you are as serious and focused as you are advocating here, but I think you might find that a lot of people want a bit more than just sitting in an auditorium "talking usefully about the actual conference topic" to make the trip fun. If a conference devolves into pure binge drinking and partying, then yes, I can understand your concern. But some amount of partying is a legitimate draw for people and it fills seats. That's just the way it goes.

Conference attendees are still paying customers. Giving them what they want tends to result in repeat business.

An analogy might help: If people like more sugar in their food, and adding sugar to it increases sales, then what we ultimately will get is not food, but candy, labeled "Food".

Therefore, even giving paying customers what they not only ask for, but actually do want, might still not be a good idea.

Grocery stores are absolutely chock full of terribly unhealthy products misnamed "food".

Presumably, their competitors either adapted or died. Even if the winds of change are blowing in bad way for society, trying to stand against them may be bad for business.

Perhaps take the tactic of the yuppie organic good section?

Wait a few years, then start a conference dedicated to real work and actually getting things done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com