Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by exolymph 3816 days ago
I disagree with him regarding the usefulness of CoCs -- spelling out the rules of engagement can be powerful -- but I respect that he put his money where his mouth is, so to speak.
2 comments

I also disagree with him about CoC's, though for a reason that he doesn't really address.

Anybody who has lived for long enough knows at least one person who can be unkind out of obliviousness, not knowing better, or not being aware of social cues.

Also, people in disagreements get mad or passionate, and that tends to incite people to cross the line of professional respect. Passion is good, hostility is not. I've had to remind normally kind people that I manage to "not do ____ again" on multiple occasions, with the implicit threat of firing them.

My conclusion from my own experiences is that "don't be a dick" is not universally understood, and people will make mistakes, often unintentionally. So I think a CoC is useful as one of many different ways any organization has to remind its members to be kind. It's still up to the administrators to enforce things, but a CoC is a useful reminder especially to incoming members to be aware of their conduct.

I tend to agree with you. I do think that the common sense "don't be a dick" shouldn't need to be explicitly expressed as a rule we all follow. But it should also be common sense not to put your hands near a spinning metal blade, but we have those warnings on lawnmowers. I think where a CoC provides it value is defining the procedures for when the CoC is violated, which it no doubt will be.
I think Rachel Nabors' article on the topic is excellent: http://rachelnabors.com/2015/09/01/code-of-conduct/
> we have those warnings on lawnmowers

because of lawsuit-happy culture, not due to lack of common sense.

Rachel Nabor's article is interesting, but not sure how a CoC fixes dealing with a boorish weirdo outside the conference.

Do you imply that maiming should be a common occurrence or that warnings prevent no injuries?
In this context I'm implying CoC do not "prevent" nor the lack thereof causes bad behavior.

This BTW seems to get to the crux of what half of his decision was about. If he thinks CoC are worthless, that is not the same thing as believe abuse should be a common occurrence.