[jgeorge]

> Publicly shaming someone on twitter isn't necessarily trying to start a witch hunt.

"Trying", no. But Twitter is (and has been for a while) The Great Internet Outrage Machine, so I think someone with any level of Twitter chops at all would realize that any public shaming (especially on a hot button topic) would likely result in someone kicking off a witch hunt just because.

I don't think she was trying to start the fire, but she /did/ bring the matches.

edit: and just for clarification, I don't necessarily think her public shaming was wrong, but I do thing the resultant witch hunt was.

[lotharbot]

My approach to conflict resolution: if you have a problem with someone, you should first approach them privately. If that doesn't work, then bring in someone who is mutually trusted by both parties. If that fails, take the problem to the broader community.

The wider you spread an issue, the less it remains under your control. Turning around and saying semi-privately "could you guys tone it down" means the issue can potentially be resolved immediately, with no fallout, and with nobody knowing beyond those who could already hear the initial comment. Bringing in a couple of conference officials means the issue can potentially be resolved after a short investigation, and that any issues that arise at that time can be de-escalated. Posting to your 9,000 twitter followers means there are 9,000 people all passing judgment in their own way, 9,000 people who have the opportunity to escalate the issue or spread it even wider. It's very hard, once you've put someone's photo and "this person is behaving badly" in front of an audience of thousands, to completely resolve the issue in everyones' minds. It may not have been intended to be a witch hunt, but it had all of the right elements to become one, and it didn't need to.