No more rock stars: how to stop abuse in tech communities
hypatia.ca
hypatia.ca
That said, something about the tone of this blog post is utterly repellent to me and I'm struggling to put my finger on the reason why.
It just sounds like "Just say no to rockstars!". Yes, it goes deeper, and outlines why rockstars are a problem, but the 'just say no' message makes me a bit uneasy.
Points for honesty. Drawing from my own experience: sometimes this feeling happens for a reason, and sometimes it happens gratuitously when we encounter a perspective we're not used to hearing. As Daniel Kahneman (among many others) has pointed out: "familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth."
There can and should be discussion and debate around this issue especially when it casually calls for things like tossing due process and burden of proof out the window.
Perhaps the piece is too weak to stand on its own merit.
Everyone knows sexual assault is bad, jerks are jerks, not all jerks are sexual predators and Twitter is still the worst source possible, next to Tumblr.
I'm not giving them a free pass either. Both behaviors are wrong (one MUCH worse), but neither need to be tolerated.
You shouldn't. But you also shouldn't let people appropriate the political capital of a topic as serious as sexually predatory behavior to argue points about assholes. Not only because the magnitude of the negatives they introduce into the world are so widely disproportionate, but also because "asshole" is a suspiciously flexible term. "Asshole" doesn't even describe behavior, it describes an assessment of behavior. From a mild but harmless annoyance, all the way to fireable and beyond.
I'm not. But I've seen FAR TOO MANY statements here and elsewhere that provable death threats or sending porn pics is wrong but anything no matter how jackassy up to that is fair perfectly acceptable. I'm VERY tired of that attitude.
And I don't believe in the slippery-slope of assholeness. Everyone knows their definition, I don't think it will slip to anything trivial. Asshole will not equal annoying any time soon.
This is so important.
Preface: I am not defending Jacob Appelbaum at all here---the evidence of wrongdoing in his case looks solid.
Encouraging internet pitchfork mobs is wrong. Morally wrong. Due process can be frustratingly slow, but the principle of innocent until proven guilty is vital.
Preemptively labelling people "oppressors" or "abusers" is wrong.
--
Story time. The scene is my high school sophomore English class, ~9 years ago. There was a huge news story about some men on Duke lacrosse team hiring a stripper and then raping her. It was the perfect storm of outrage: multiple white men from a privileged background, a single black woman, a rape accusation.
In English class, we debated the ethics of the case, rape culture, and so on.
I pointed out that with no witnesses and no rape kit, the only incriminating evidence was the accuser's word. I said that the accusation might well be true, but that we should reserve judgement until the court case ran its course.
I got a lot of flak for saying that. A few classmates said I was being misogynistic and that I was part of the problem. The teacher lectured me somberly about how much courage it takes to report abuse and how important it is to believe such reports.
--
A few months later, the men were acquitted fully and the accuser admitted she had fabricated the whole story.
To this day, if you Google any of the mens' names, the first page is full of national news stories about how they raped someone.
--
Here's a picture from a few days ago. Spoiler alert, the arrows point to the wrong apartment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11724935
(and more on Twitter, of course).
Please tell us more about how important this principle is to you.
Also, much as I hate to spoil a fun new narrative wave for you to surf, but none of the authors of this post condone vandalizing the homes of people accused of abuse. In fact: you quoted one of the more vocal Appelbaum critics as doing exactly the opposite, while sneakily implying otherwise.
Here, I'll link directly to the thread you're talking about, so people can judge for themselves.
https://twitter.com/dcposch/status/707069168852410368
I'm not saying you succeeded in creating a pitchfork mob, just that your attempts to do so were cartoonish, and so it's pretty funny to learn you've found religion about pitchforks now.
I would wrap this up by saying: things are complicated, they're often complicated in every possible direction, we usually don't have all the facts (you sure didn't), and we are rarely well served by platitudes. For example: the reason you believe the evidence against Appelbaum appears solid is that people spoke up.
That was rude, unkind and you shouldn't have posted it.
Happy to have people read both the Twitter thread and the one on HN, I think I said things that were worth, if you'll pardon the phrase, speaking up about.
Specifically: I feel bad that I didn't come up with it. It was funny!
Instead, I ended up subjecting someone else to the shitstorm you and Nadim briefly generated. Just weeks ago, you were on HN --- unbidden! --- to inform everyone that I'd been "joking about Nadim's penis". You two deserve each other.
I'm going to bow out of this part of the thread before we start litigating a different monster in the security/privacy community.
Edit: Since people objected and it seems like a bad idea to argue about this, I've put it back.
Your description seems pretty tendentious, though. That comment neither "point[ed] out that [tptacek] was being untruthful" nor "prove[d] that the accusations are false". It just linked to an earlier spat.
This thread is about tptacek's claim that I "attempted to whip up an Internet pitchfork mob".
I think his accusation and my response should be in the same place. Thanks.
I'm more interested in the un(der)examined assertion that, when it comes to accusations of sexual misconduct, the accused should have a presumption of guilt. Have there been any published arguments in favor of this?
If anyone's been following, for instance, the Jian Ghomeshi trial, any reasonable person should conclude that he is quite probably a rapist, and is most definitely a predator. (As he himself admitted in the Kathryn Borel trial). However, the jury failed to conclude that he is a rapist beyond reasonable doubt.
Sending someone to jail when their odds of being guilty are say 50%, or even 75% is unconscionable (Although if you don't have a good lawyer, that most can most certainly happen). On the other hand, say, not banning that same person from your conference is grossly negligent.
Additionally, in many environments, the consequences for reporting that you were a victim of sexual harassment are far more serious then for being an actual perpetrator of sexual harassment. By default, we bias ourselves to favour attackers.
If people do this as often as they see things happen, no matter how big or how small, then the problem people would soon become obvious to everyone. Each individual can decide for themselves who to believe, based on the full availability of the evidence, that is now right in the open for everyone to see.
That may be how social media work, that's absolutely not how justice should work. Anybody can be accused of sexual misconduct on social media. It's not justice when one can't defend himself.
The accused then takes the stand, and insists that yes, you clearly consented to being assaulted at 2 am behind a dumpster, when you were too drunk to speak.
And if, heaven forbid, the case falls apart, you'll likely be sued right back for slander, damaging your attacker's public image, loss of income, etc.
That's the defense's job in an adversarial legal system. That doesn't make in any better for victims.
I could be wrong, of course, and in fact I am wrong in my imputations of the intention of others with startling frequency. However, I am usually fairly aggrieved by the sort of apologetics with which feminism becomes an excuse for the arrogation of power, and I am not really getting that feeling in this case.
This means that if you are actually doing harassment, your odds of getting called out on any particular interaction are low.
This also means that if you aren't actually doing any harassment, your odds of being falsely accused are even lower. While you're not more likely to be hit by a bus on the way to work, it's not that far off.
Getting falsely accused by more then one person (Which is what the article points out as the big red warning sign) would be like winning the lottery. It's best not to structure your policies about landing 6 for 6 on the 6/49.
To me the dissonance came from an unusual definition of the word "rockstar." In the programming context, I've usually heard it as "someone who is really good at programming," but here they are trying to define it as "someone who pretends to be good at programming and harasses everyone around them."
A lot of people are also uncomfortable the the gendering implied in the word "whore". It's not worth litigating here (please let's not), but it's worth knowing about.
It may be b/c she's conflating "rockstar" with "asshole", begging the question are all tech rockstars assholes, and are all tech assholes rockstars? Her personal experience seems characterized by a preponderance of evidence in support of that, but others may not have the same experience.
She also seems to define rockstars as attention whores who don't actually get any real work done (in the section on how you recognize one), which is not the definition the HN crowd is used to (quite the opposite), and begs the question why are they rockstars? Coasting on a single past achievement maybe?
That's among those I've worked with. I know there must be those who don't fit this type. But they haven't been in my personal circles.
I hope that she will take the evidence to the police and file charges as soon as possible. Violent crimes such as are being reported can not be allowed to slide. It's critical that trained authorities take over the investigation at this point and determine the facts, gather evidence, interview witnesses, and proceed as needed with prosecution. Prosecuting a case through amateur blogs is not an effective or appropriate means of obtaining justice.
I'm sure the authors of the article would recommend you read the linked piece on http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
For me what sits a little uneasily is that a huge amount of this directly conflicts with the startup culture and stories of early tech, especially ones which may actually have appealed to certain "nerdy" personalities. Be it your Apple or Microsoft with people staying extremely late living on pizza, throwing themselves entirely into the project, people being almost 100% responsible for their particular portion be it QuickDraw or the SID chip or CP/M or such things, building a sense of camaraderie through the shared struggle to deliver. I agree that long-term it's harmful, and I certainly wouldn't want to work in a company that tried to make it the indefinte norm, but I dislike the insinuation that it is so bad that there is never a time or a place for it (due to leading to harassment etc).
If some people want to draw life satisfaction primarily from their work and getting acclaim for it, is there no place for that in the world?
I think the repellence comes from cognitive dissonance.
I recognize that most people are probably way more social than me. So maybe you are also averse to this kind of compassionless judgement of other people's behavior.
For what it is worth, I find these people making proclamations about how everyone should behave (in particular, based on their field of interest) to be world champion fart sniffers. Hopefully some day they will grow up and stop demanding that other people conform to their whims.
You rarely hear about open source developers who focus on one project and produce amazing work over many years - These developers are too busy actually writing code and promoting the project to care about promoting themselves - Because they understand that their project is more important. A good open source developer sees themselves as a servant to the project, not the master.
I think a big problem in the tech industry in general is that there is too much focus on people - I'm sick of hearing investors say "We invest in people, not products" - I think this sends the wrong message and attracts the wrong people.
The product should always be more important than the people who built it - People who agree with this statement are the ones we should invest in because they're the ones who will actually create value for society (as opposed to merely capturing value which others have created).
Too much painting with a broad brush and trying to redefine a word normally reserved for an Ace team member.
I think you're right, and the "rock star" pattern looks similar wherever it crops up, with similar fallout. It's only the tolerance for it which varies.
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/VestedContributor
https://web.archive.org/web/20160318184830/http://meatballwi...
> The vested contributor is someone who believes they are entitled to a degree of indulgence or bending of the rules because of the duration and extent of their past contributions. In some cases, this view may be shared by other community members. The indulgence of vested contributors undermines FairProcess and the WikiNow. It is demoralizing to those who have made less widely recognized contributions, and to recent arrivals. An inside club or "cabal" can arise where there are a number of vested contributors who mutually reinforce.
Also, I think a term like "rock star" (in the benevolent sense) is a useful one. There are people who are really talented (and know it), who love the limelight, who sometimes say controversial things, and who have contributed more to our industry than any of us could hope to. I'm talking about people like Daniel J. Bernstein, David Heinemeier Hansson, Theo de Raadt, and (of course) Linus Torvalds. If we're going to give "rock star" purely negative connotations, I'm not sure what what to call these people. "Badass" would work, except some social circles frown upon profanity.
Try to give the piece the most charitable possible interpretation. Leigh Honeywell knows more about Daniel J. Bernstein and Theo de Raadt than most people on HN. There's an interpretation of this post that suggests she's claiming that DJB and Theo are abusers, but common sense --- we don't even need charity! --- tells us that's probably not what she's saying.
But if they are also a rock star they often get tolerated/encouraged. Their value appears to mean the community is willing to put up it. And THATS where rock stars are a problem.
You can call Carmack a rock star, he's earned it. I don't think I've ever heard anything other than he's a nice guy (I hope that's not from lack of people speaking up).
In terms of reading charitably, I'm sorry to say that you're the one who needs to do more of it. I never implied that the author might be accusing those people of abusive behavior. In fact, that idea didn't even occur to me until you mentioned it. I was just giving examples of good "rock stars" in our field.
My issue is this: There are plenty of existing terms that accurately describe what the author is talking about. If she manages to redefine "rock star" to be purely negative, it robs us of a useful word. And because of that, a lot of people are going to be against her definitional change. (As evidence, just look at this HN thread.) She could gain more support by avoiding this definitional fight.
I'm not saying that the debate over terminology is unproductive; maybe we'll hit on the perfect word. But it's not the point of the piece.
When I used to work in politics, after he did a great speech at the DNC convention, I called Obama a "rock star" that was going to go on to big things. That was long before he announced his run for presidency. Mind you, I didn't even vote for him and I said that (I proudly throw my presidential vote away for the Libertarian candidate every year).
That title works best, naturally, when it isn't diluted down in crappy job postings.
I'm all for tossing out abusers here, don't get me wrong. But honestly, as perhaps the only person here that has ever actually contracted a form of Cholera (long story), I still wouldn't want to live in a world that's only plumbers, and I don't think you would either.
We don't need to institutionally get rid of "rock stars". Their ambition for attention and fame is a recipe for a lot of great things. What I think we really need here is to get better at not enabling them to be abusive, and for calling them out when they are.
I also do think we need to get better at choosing who our rock stars are, an opinion I got a long time ago from watching Limp Bizkit win a music award.
The line "A rock star appears in dozens of magazine profiles – and never, ever tells the journalist to talk to the people actually doing the practical everyday work." is particularly galling. If you are not doing the work, how the heck would you legitimately be called a rock star?
I think the love of tearing down people is echoed in the love of taking words that meant exceptional and making them mean destructive things. Hero and hero words die far too often.
1) its been going on a long time and sometimes I think its an insider trick to know who to award grants to (e.g. "empowerment" was my personal favorite).
There's also the sound/lights/crew/merch people, but they wouldn't have a reason to be there without the rock stars.
The crew is important, but so is the electric company that provides the power. They are, as you say, only there because of the rock stars.
That describes many CEOs and founders. The VC system today values the glib attention-seeker. So does Kickstarter, where the video of the presenter is often more important than the product. Society as a whole today rewards the attention-seeker. There was a time when self-promotion was considered an embarrassing lower-class trait, associated with door to door salesmen and such. Today, we have Donald Trump.
"Attention seeking" and "asshole" are independent. Making your organization asshole-resistant can be worthwhile. Read "Assholes, A Theory", by Aaron James. There are people who want attention but aren't assholes; many actors are like that. There are assholes who don't want attention, just power - they're found in dysfunctional organizations.
Whatever I think about attention seekers[1], I am much more offended by this constant need we seem to have to tear down people who were heroes and with them the words we use to describe our heroes. This churn is bad for us. [edit: obviously anyone who actual did what was said needs to be more than torn down, but that doesn't mean the words need to be burnt]
1) and oh, boy howdy to I have some strong opinions on them including a rant that involves being lied to and almost getting killed by cattle.
Keeping out bad actors is desirable, but never going to be 100%. Avoiding creating the power dynamic which enables abusers to flourish is also important.
the author seems to have picked up on a case of a narcissistic possibly deviant and then tarnished all people who excel / lead with the same brush.
this reeks of tall poppy syndrome, i can't even believe what i'm reading.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum [2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2858953/Statement...
Can you just come right out and say whatever it is you're implying with those last two sentences? Thanks!
This is a really dangerous line of thinking. Just because someone is a "jerk" does not mean that they're a criminal and the burden of proof for accusations goes out the window. This whole post, and the site it links to reeks of vigilantism. If he really did do the things he's accused of (I've never heard of Jacob before so can't comment), he should be dealt with by the proper authorities. It's not up to employers to act as judge, jury and executioners.
I would also add that people who engage in these types of public witch hunts and calls for codes of conduct, new rules... are very much showing signs of the narcissism they claim to be against.
I always called those top programmers rockstars, but apparently that's the wrong term.....what should they be called then?
That was a well known usage for the term. This blog post is trying to redefine "rockstar" but you/we don't have to go along with the language policing.
That said, some of this post feels worryingly like it's pushing 'truth by association' to me. I'd love to hear each of the recommendations herein discussed on their own merit and with clear reasons given for each one.
That is, I wouldn't encourage anyone to conflate fighting narcissism and arrogance with quashing openness, confidence and self-respect in a demographic (engineers) which arguably already has trouble with those - irrespective of the gender of the engineer.
You will probably need rock stars and plumbers getting along well. If someone is a bad employee rockstar or otherwise that needs to be dealt properly.
Regardless, the article is spot on in describing what to do to produce healthy environments, whereas most uses of the term rock star that I've found come from unhealthy ones.
But we'd have to fire all the first-level problem report handlers of most of the open source projects I've dealt with.
Avoid organizations becoming too central to people’s lives
Enforce strict policies around sexual or romantic relationships within power structures
I understand, the whole system is rigged to praise rock stars and screw the plumbers.
People flag stories for all sorts of reasons on HN. Some people don't want non-tech or political or current-events stories of any sort on the front page. Some people don't want to see threads descend into the inevitably shitshows that these threads descend into. Some people disagree with the story.
If you think something's been flagged unfairly, rather than litigating it on the threads, you should mail hn@ycombinator.com. We have one of the more reasonable moderation teams on the Internet here, but they can't be everywhere all at once.
Using the flag button as a downvote button for stories you disagree with, while allowing stories on the same topics you do agree with, is an abuse.
If someone posted an article about one of the accusers of JA and creating a mob-and-pitchfork threads against them, I would flag it equally the same as this one. If the only purpose of the submission is to attack people (see attack articles on Wikipedia for definition and concept), then its fail the first HN rule for the threads it will create, ie its not civil to have mob-and-pitchfork threads and its not something anyone would say in a face-to-face conversation with the accused or accuser. In a previous article discussion about JA, someone compared him to hitler. Do you think they would be perfectly fine say that in person?
>> any article that only results in mob-and-pitchfork style discussion > "while allowing stories on the same topics you do agree with"
If topic == mob-and-pitchfork; goto flag-article(). How could I have been be more clear in previous comment? All, any, and regardless if I like the person being attacked or not, I do not find such article to be civil and productive for discussion. I don't even find it productive for social change, as all it does is raising the tone and driving out those that social campaigns tries to convince. Left are those that are already convinces that they are right, flaming against each other.
"Why are rock stars so common and successful?"
Because communities like "leaders", and they have shit heuristics to determine it. And everyone loves an asshole, and there's tons of asshole hackers.
"How do we as a community prevent rock stars?"
Stop being a community.
I'm serious. Communities breed power in individuals and it's been proven time and again (and "in studies", no less) that in an in-group, a person with power and low morals is more likely to abuse their power. It's inherent to in-groups. Remove the community, you remove the power, you remove the social and other influences that bring the immoral, not-powerful person into contact with the vulnerable. No community, no abuse.
"Our recommendations can be summarized as: decentralizing points of failure,"
....What? This isn't an Active Directory tree, these are humans. Every node in your network is a point of failure.
"increasing transparency,"
And what would that look like? Sending an e-mail to a listserv every time someone says something passive-aggressive to you? Again, there is no simple way to police the myriad of potential abuses, micro or macro, from all sorts of personalities.
"improving accountability,"
Which, for a community that shuns the police, looks like what? K-lining him from your IRC server?
"supporting private and anonymous communication,"
You already have that. This whole debacle has shown how anonymous communication is dismissed until a real face is put to a complaint, and many of them, all at once. This is pretty standard group dynamics, again.
"reducing power differentials,"
So... everyone is an op. Nobody is allowed to like anyone else more, and everyone has to be invited to your party.
"and avoiding situations that make violating boundaries more likely."
No more alcohol or drugs and nobody is allowed to be in a room alone with one other person, AND no PMs allowed, everything in-chat and logged. Got it.
--
The points, one by one:
Codes of conduct won't be followed if the people enforcing the code of conduct don't enforce it. This is why there are police that police the police.
"Start with the assumption that harassment reports are true" - if Jake had made the first report against his victim, now we would have to believe Jake. Default assumption of guilt doesn't work - this is why our own country's laws do the opposite. All the examples given of "investigating for bad behavior" are things regular non-rapey people do all the time. "nasty emails, stolen credit, rude behavior, and unethical acts big and small" ? That's every fucking hacker troll alive.
Making it easy for victims to find each other is not a good idea, because coordination leads, again, to failed heuristics: one person felt uncomfortable with a consensual act, another was actually violently sexually assaulted, and now the first changes their story so they're taken more seriously. (This is not something i'm making up to gaslight an invisible person, btw, this happens to real victims) It would, however, be GREAT if there were a community-specific organization that anyone could contact to discuss how they feel in a safe way.
Watching for boundary pushing and react strongly - yes, 100%.
Call people out for "monopolizing attention" - uh.... Right, popular female hacker scenester. Let's police the social convention of "taking credit for work" or "being loud and outgoing". You and I both know nobody's going to shout down the hacker media whores - and there are so, so many.
The "deep bench of talent" thing is again, almost completely irrelevant to generally preventing abuse in communities.
You basically explained why your point about hierarchies is invalid, so no need to comment.
"Failing up" is a minor aspect of corporate hierarchy and has nothing to do with social or personal power in in-groups, this is not relevant to the subject.
And, sure, "no relationships in the workplace". You go ahead and explain to Sally and Joe (or Jane, or Zed, or whatever) that Sally is going to have to support her kids without Joe's help because Joe needs to leave the company because you feel uncomfortable that they might one day have a domestic dispute.
"Avoid organizations becoming too central to people's lives" - this really has zero to do with the subject.
"Distribute the keys to the kingdom" - Same.
"Don't create environments for potential boundary violation" - Like I said above - no drugs, no alcohol, never leave anyone alone with another person. Your parties are gonna be a blast. Chiptune, diet shasta orange, and vacation slides. Wheeeee.
--
"We waited too long to do something about it."
Correct. Now, next time, do something about it. That is really all that needed to be said and all that needs to be done.
Although I think it needs to be pointed out that sometimes, someone is a Rockstar because they earned it. Which seems to be a possibility left unexplored in this piece.
Yes, the reality is that if you never leave the house, live in a panic room, cover your entire self at all hours, etc you reduce the risk, but ultimately the action is on the abuser rather than the one being abused and that is where we should direct criticism, especially in immediate/direct response to something like this IMO.
What are we ideally working towards? A world where everyone must avoid a defined level of risk (including certain level of dress!), or one where any of us can walk anywhere with an expectation that we won't be abused by another one of us? I'd like to think the latter.
Yes, the action is on the abuser. I never once said the blame is on the victim. However, most of what the author has laid out is "He is a jerk, people have said he is a jerk, he takes advantage of people, etc". Not "He forcibly raped me and others." So - as an individual - taking very simple steps, like the ones I outlined in my first comment, are only common sense, and can only work in said individual's favor.
I've read some of this author's other posts, including the one that talks specifically about her relationship with Appelbaum (including consensual sexual acts). Calling her a victim because she was taken advantage of, on the same level the girls in Australia you mentioned who were forcibly gang raped are victims, is absurd.
Edit: Leaving the above alone, but on further inspection, it looks like several people have claimed that he "sexually assaulted" them. Now, if true, they should have reported these things to the police immediately. However, I went ahead and read through the stories on the Appelbaum shame website. In every one of the instances, the victim put themselves in a situation to be taken advantage of by this scumbag - drinking heavily enough to black out with him, sleeping in the same bed as him, etc.
Am I defending him? Hell no. But something has to be said about taking responsibility for one's own safety and well being, and being intelligent about not getting into situations like these.
Except rapes do get committed by "trusted" people, so we're left with "common sense" advice that is either massively paranoid or useless.
But something has to be said about taking responsibility for one's own safety and well being, and being intelligent about not getting into situations like these.
The article is "being intelligent about not getting into situations like these". You, on the other hand, seem to be trying for a just world fallacy.
I am pretty sure that if that happened, people would watch what they said much more.
The latter...but we have to live in the world as it is, not the world that we hope to someday achieve.
If I were to put on a top of the line Rolex watch, pick up an expensive laptop in one hand, and $100k cash in the other hand, and take a stroll alone at night through a major city's most gang controlled, crime riddled, neighborhood and found myself involuntarily relieved of watch, laptop, and cash, I think people would be justified in putting some of the blame for the robbery on me even though I would also be the victim.
"3 out of 4 rapes [in the US] are committed by someone known to the victim." https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violenc...
Perhaps we need trigger warning trigger warnings for people who are triggered by trigger warnings?
I often do. It varies, this article is mostly fine. Some good points in general about organizations.
When you get to codes of conduct and changing the PRs to remove master/slave terminology you pretty much lose me. I guess a CoC is useful as it puts things in writing, but it still feels like PC overkill. If you aren't able to treat people with respect/professionalism then leave. Does it really need to be called out that you need to do that regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc...
To be quite frank, some of the things brought up just seem like they really aren't a big deal. Someone is harassing people then yes, absolutely go after them. Gender neutrality in your new press release, yeah sure that is sensible. Complaining because some database system uses master/slave terminology... does it really matter? Of course that goes both ways, something trivial can probably just be changed. Even if the only real reason is to get someone to quit complaining.