Hacker News Reader

> Because behaving like a decent human being is that hard, isn't it? If a code of conduct hurts your feelings that much maybe you're just not cut out for collaborative work.

This is a personal attack, very thinly veiled. If Hacker News had the same code of conduct, your account would have to be banned at worst.

That's fair, it's definitely a way to read this. I shouldn't respond to hyperbolic language with the like. I'll edit it.

Edit: Too late, I can't edit anymore unfortunately. Let me rephrase:

"Behaving like a decent human being isn't that hard. It's work that anyone who wants to work in a collaborative project can reasonably be expected to do. If this is objectionable to you, then maybe this collaboration isn't for you."

> Behaving like a decent human being isn't that hard.

It can be quite hard to live up to everyone's standards of "decency". You just failed to do it.

> I shouldn't respond to hyperbolic language with the like.

Write that on the chalkboard one hundred times and maybe we'll let it slide. This time.

Yeah, I was called out on it, and I corrected myself. I wouldn't want to be part of a project that bans people who make an effort towards decency. The fact that standards differ and a consensus needs to be found for what constitutes decency is not an argument against it.

What point are you trying to illustrate? Are you saying I shouldn't have been called out on it? Because I disagree. The fact was, I found the post I replied to annoying, and I replied in a tone that was stronger than it needed to be. It's a good thing that was called out. Next time I'll take a breather before replying and we'll have a more constructive exchange.

I believe they were trying to refute your initial point:

> Because behaving like a decent human being is that hard, isn't it?

By pointing out that you weren't able to live up to that standard even when trying to champion it. How hard will it be if you're in a heated argument with someone when your work is at stake?

Thanks.

I don't know, this is the topic I get most heated about, I successfully lead pretty diverse teams, this definitely wouldn't happen to me in that context. After all discussion message boards like this are also a different context than a professional mailing list (and I strongly believe that context is important and not always appropriately taken into account).

Just because something isn't that hard, doesn't mean we don't slip up sometimes. So I'd stand by my assessment. It isn't that hard. I expect it of myself and my team. I still sometimes fail. Then a CoC, being called out on it, and given constructive criticism helps me.

> Just because something isn't that hard, doesn't mean we don't slip up sometimes. So I'd stand by my assessment. It isn't that hard. I expect it of myself and my team. I still sometimes fail. Then a CoC, being called out on it, and given constructive criticism helps me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_(psychology)#Disintegr...

> Just because something isn't that hard, doesn't mean we don't slip up sometimes.

Code of Conduct that you are defending doesn't mention it. It allows to state someone guilty right after first "slip up". Now I can take your comments and present them to the pretty diverse teams you successfully lead and you may be expelled from them due to your heated arguments on HN. But I wouldn't do that. I'm just making an example how exploitable Contrubutor Covenant's policies are.

It doesn't mention automatic sanctions either. Your argument is essentially: If we are OK with some sanctions on some behaviour what will stop someone from enforcing unreasonable and draconic sanctions!

To me this is roughly analogous to: If we let a maintainer decide what code to accept into the Kernel, they can just take malicious or suboptimal code and merge it!

I have seen attempted overreach in using statements made in different contexts against individuals, but overall it seems that these overreach situations were mostly corrected.

In fact a well written CoC should protect against this sort of stuff as well. It should make explicit this defence: This is my personal handle, not associated to my professional career, thus I am not representing my employer or an open source entity when I argue here.

The arguments I've encountered here in this thread are not for better CoCs, or for how we should behave towards each other, but just blanket rejections of CoCs.

I think part of the problem is that in the CoC context, the slighted party now looks at your username, cross references it against reddit and twitter, searches your posts for something else to take umbrage at, and makes the case that you should be excluded from the community. The result is a very real chilling effect on speech on all public platforms because now you're never allowed to make a comment that might be taken out of context to offend now or at any time in the future.

This is the key to the whole thing and I'm glad someone finally said it. Open-source projects aren't incapable of getting rid of contributors who cause problems to the detriment of project productivity without having a formalized Code of Conduct. Why add something to a project that causes more problems than it solves? CoC proponents have good intentions but fail to see the chilling effect potential, even as it plays itself out in real time, right on cue (Ts'o).

I agree with this worry and think a CoC should make clear that it covers conduct within the project only.

That said, this chilling effect seems to come more from companies and public institutions in the UK/US than CoCs in the OpenSource community. I agree that this is something to clearly position against.

And I believe a well written CoC can help here by making this explicit: For example: By refering to behaviour in an official capacity. There is some subtlty with OpenSource projects and less formalized roles here. So that's a discussion worth having.

> What point are you trying to illustrate? Are you saying I shouldn't have been called out on it? Because I disagree. The fact was, I found the post I replied to annoying, and I replied in a tone that was stronger than it needed to be. It's a good thing that was called out. Next time I'll take a breather before replying and we'll have a more constructive exchange.

See, that's what I disagree with. To me that reads like almost pathological conflict-avoidance, or maybe it's the urge to not be a hypocrite. Either way, it's unnecessarily submissive and it's making you weak.

Does it look like I'm shying away from conflict here?

Yes.

It's attitudes like yours, that seem to equate conflict with aggression, not admitting mistakes with strength and bullying with commanding respect, that need to be opposed. CoCs or not.

> It's attitudes like yours, that seem to equate conflict with aggression

I don't. Aggressiveness, especially passive-aggressiveness (like in your original reply) is usually a sign of weakness.

> not admitting mistakes with strength

You ceded to an overly pedantic and uncharitable interpretation of the CoC that, if applied, would be disastrous. People can't live up to that standard, applying it would be counter-productive even to your own goals. My goal was to make you realize that, not cave in. You had not made a mistake.

> and bullying with commanding respect

Asking people to live up to an extreme interpretation of an already highly subjective CoC, that is bullying in my book. If you actually commanded respect, you wouldn't need such a document in the first place.

> ...that need to be opposed.

You're opposing a straw man.

Hacker News does have a code of conduct, and the comment was flagged.

> Because behaving like a decent human being is that hard, isn't it? If a code of conduct hurts your feelings that much maybe you're just not cut out for collaborative work.

Who gets to decide what's "decent"? Do you not realize that what you just wrote can be considered [inappropriate], a [personal attack] and/or [trolling]? Do it once more, perhaps unwittingly, and you're a repeat offender. Three strikes and you are out. If I like you (or rather your politics align with mine), I won't use that weapon against you, but it's in my power to do so.

Look into what led to the Ayo.js/node.js fork, it was basically caused by R.V. posting on his personal twitter something against CoCs. He wasn't in line with the politics of certain other members. In that case, sanity prevailed, but only narrowly.

For another example where that weapon was turned against the very person who brought it to the table, look into what happened with J.K. and Lerna.

> But the whole "I can't contribute to this project anymore because I find SJWs offensive" whinging strikes me as deeply hypocritical.

Nobody actually is saying that. You're just misrepresenting the argument in a [derogatory] manner. That's pretty [insulting], isn't it?

I adopted a better tone in one of the replies higher up, but I do not believe I substantially misrepresent the argument (which is now flagged so I can't see it anymore).

Also the CoC explicitly gives a list of examples on what is decent/indecent behavior. It's a good one to me. Ultimately the answer is the same as with anything in a collaborative group: The group has to come to a consensus on what is and isn't decent. What we are experiencing right now is that this consensus is shifting.

Also, yes, there are examples of CoCs being used to bully people, or people making stupid decisions. These have usually been quickly reverted. [1]

But overall I have seen a lot more whinging reactions along the lines of "how dare you put your politics here!" than actual examples of abuses. And remember the information asymmetry here. Every abuse of a CoC is by definition public, and therefore also ultimately the community has a lot of options to correct such abuses. On the other hand, people who drop out because they find the atmosphere in a group toxic rarely go public. I've certainly dropped out of groups for that reason without mentioning it anywhere.

[1] Remember the "fork their repository" and dongle jokes debacle from a few years back? The outcome of that was that the accused was initially quickly fired (institutional overreaction to a ridiculous accusation), but ultimately got a new job immediately. The accuser on the other hand got a whole ton of abuse, lost her business, and last I checked was still out of a job. The idea that on balance the social power has shifted too far into the direction of the accusers is absurd to me. It just does not fit the world I observe. Every public accuser still get's harassed a lot. There are still plenty of incentives to not publicly accuse.

> Every abuse of a CoC is by definition public

That is untrue.

> But overall I have seen a lot more whinging reactions along the lines of "how dare you put your politics here!" than actual examples of abuses.

That is besides the point.

> [1] Remember the "fork their repository" and dongle jokes debacle from a few years back? The outcome of that was that the accused was initially quickly fired (institutional overreaction to a ridiculous accusation), but ultimately got a new job immediately. The accuser on the other hand got a whole ton of abuse, lost her business, and last I checked was still out of a job.

Well, okay, what do we actually learn from that unfortunate turn of events though? If you ask me, it's that CoCs cause more problems than they solve, for everyone involved. I actually gave you the example where the person who introduced the CoC got thrown out via the CoC.

> The idea that on balance the social power has shifted too far into the direction of the accusers is absurd to me. It just does not fit the world I observe. Every public accuser still get's harassed a lot. There are still plenty of incentives to not publicly accuse.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. I'm not making a "power balance" argument myself, your argument couldn't be that it all evens out because everyone's life will be ruined.

The problem is not in the guys who want to misbehave and hate Code of Conduct because of that. Code of conduct and its vaguely written rules gives certain people a power to abuse. As we know from history, if there is a possibility that power can be abused, it will be.

We know from history that human collaboration, and the building of communities requires norms, compromise and ongoing discussion.

Fight the abusers, fight the bullies, but don't pretend that we can't have written down norms of decency because of the potential for abuse.

You presumably wouldn't accept blanket "potential for abuse/harm" arguments in other contexts either.

> don't pretend that we can't have written down norms of decency because of the potential for abuse

I don't pretend that we can't have written norms of decency. But I know for sure that it's not the norms written in "Contributor's Covenant". It should be another covenant.

> You presumably wouldn't accept blanket "potential for abuse/harm" arguments in other contexts either.

A couple of month ago I made a teardown[0] of 17 pages long bill that was pushed in Ukraine and had a lot of abuse potential. It was (and is) my main concern. I see it as a major issue of laws, rules, covenants and other legal or semi-legal documents. You may not see it as big issue, but I do. I see this potential abused every single day by corrupt governments of Ukraine and other ex-USSR governments. Vague rulings as in previously mentioned "Contributor's Covenant" are used to prosecute people for stupid reasons and for personal profit by ones who have power.

> Fight the abusers

It's very unlikely that witchhunt victim will return to community. I'd rather have rules better written than someone expelled from the community because someone likes to abuse the power.

[0]https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraina/comments/8te554/как_власть_...

These CoC's are weapons, disguised as a harmless decency. In the case of linux, it was yielded within a very timely manner:

https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9hhnev/less...

If the CoC is used to bully people, then fight the bullying. It's a false dichotomy that we have to accept one type of bullies in order not to empower another type of bullies.

That said, your link also just peddles various conspiracy theories as "proven", and imagines a vast conspiracy of SJWs who specifically target powerful men. Which, BTW, should it exists, is clearly utterly ineffectual.

>If the CoC is used to bully people, then fight the bullying.

Why add something to a project that begins an endless spiral of fighting? Does this seem productive to you?