Comment by FakeComments | Hacker News Reader

Comment by FakeComments | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

A formal code of conduct in a small group points to premature politicization, and is generally a red flag.

Examples like this make me seriously question the post:

> One of my favorite creative examples is signs I saw at one event in the women's bathrooms about instructions on how to report sexual harassment, including words you could use to discretely report it while the harasser was still bothering you (like ordering certain drinks).

This sounds like someone who enjoys being boss and LARPing social dynamics, not a genuine solution to social problems, much less advice that makes small groups function better.

This is infantilizing to women, and portrays them as pseudo-children who can’t even manage to directly tell someone else they need help.

If Stephanie’s contention is that women really can’t manage to simply tell someone they need help, without special club room signs and coded language, then maybe we should fix that — it sounds deeply unhealthy and unreflective of the women I know.

But if she’s not seriously contending that, her suggestions have the seriousness of LARP scenery ideas.

>infantilizing to women

I respectfully disagree. Even people with above-average ability to stand up for themselves occasionally find themselves bullied, and having a discreet way to get help escaping a bad situation can be a very handy thing.

It's really interesting how political it is. Not just the code of conduct, but the instructions to deliberately inconvenience rich people and to make sure the group is diverse. They're not things I disagree with, just things that would never have occurred to me.

Sometimes I forget that HN and America in general are both foreign cultures.

I think a more charitable reading of that part is like: "If you have to inconvenience someone, inconvenience those who are better equipped to deal with the inconvenience."

It probably goes without saying that you want to avoid inconveniencing people if possible, and that all members of a group should chip in and contribute in some way.

I dunno, the competing theory that there are lots of shitbags out there is pretty compelling.

There are a lot of “shitbags” out there. Narcissists and sociopaths will end up joining your group. The truth is a code of conduct won’t stop them, because they will subvert the rules and manipulate people into defending them. Eventually they become the leaders of the group, forcing you to leave because your favorite hobby was taken over by normies. Code of conduct won’t change human power dynamics.

So lets just not bother with anything and give it all up to assholes cause they are just going to win anyway? A code of conduct made not be able to curb the absolute worst humans - who I think are pretty rare, but it can definitely get those that go slightly out of line and are open to reason and empathy.

> So lets just not bother with anything and give it all up to assholes cause they are just going to win anyway?

No. Kick them out when you find them joining your group. A written set of rules just makes that more complicated because you have to follow those rules. If you're going to write it down, you have to follow it to the letter otherwise why would you write it down? And they _will_ find ways to abuse that.

Reporting sexual harassement is risky. You are likely to be perceived as the one causing the drama and be retaliated against. Depending who abuser is, it might not be option - because of backslash to you later.

The discreet report is for those situations.

Can you walk me through a situation where you could use a codeword to the bartender, one that is known by every female in the establishment, but not, eg, simply talk to a staff member, email them, or call them — and how doing so is more discreet?

I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying I literally can’t imagine that being useful for stopping someone I’m afraid of committing crimes against me, because shared codewords don’t actually solve a problem I’ve had in such situations.

No one is saying there shouldn’t be a discreet way to report abuse — I’m saying having to publicly say it to the bartender using language that every female in the establishment knows to be a sexual abuse report isn’t a serious suggestion for discreet reporting.

I’d like to hear how I’m wrong, though.

I don't know how precisely it translates into this situation, but there are several other distress codes where the coded nature only has to pass the harasser not "everyone". In aviation, the hijack code. In POW cases, blinking Morse code. In mall or convention security, calling the cops and asking for "Nora" ("Need Officer Right Away"). In law enforcement, 10-codes.

> I’m just saying I literally can’t imagine that being useful for stopping someone I’m afraid of committing crimes against me

Imagine that you're a typical stature (or even smaller) woman who is being harassed at a bar by a typical (or even larger) man. Imagine that the security staff has been selected and trained for their ability to provide security in a bar. You can't imagine how being able to communicate your need for security or assistance discreetly and unambiguously to them could possibly be helpful?

I don't think it's that a woman intending to get help with a harasser cares that "every female" knows the code phrase, just that the bartender and security staff do, and that it's going to be able to be unambiguously communicated to the staff before the harasser can intercept it. It's not a matter of shame where secrecy from all is important.

You mention scenes. Perhaps that is the key. I went through life without ever having to be in groups of people where any of this is warranted. Perhaps if you are involved in scenes with a high percentage of people with extreme social inaptitude - there is no way around it?

I think I came across as more disparaging to codes of conduct and those kinds of things than I meant to — they certainly have a place.

One example where you’d want one, where everyone has high social skills, is during a negotiating summit: you want to clearly define the boundaries of when and where are appropriate to negotiate, not because people would be offended, but because people have different (valid) expectations and it helps to established a shared set of norms upfront, to ease the contentiousness later.

If I tried to do the same for my friends negotiating where to eat tonight, they’d all pretty quickly agree the answer was somewhere I wasn’t.

I think it has more to do with the scale and conflict inherent in the gathering, rather than social aptitude, per se. The smaller and more aligned the group, the less useful formal process is.

You probably oppose codes of conduct in general, because you do not think your conduct should be held to a standard, personally.

I oppose it for small events. You don't have a code of conduct for a party or a gathering of friends. It's just assumed that if you're not a positive influence in the group you're probably not getting invited to the next gathering.

To me, it just feels too impersonal. Everyone is different, and most people like to be treated differently in some ways. People communicate this through facial expressions and body language.

It just feels more organic without too many formal rules.

> To me, it just feels too impersonal.

This is a relatable criticism. I think you're right that we lose some sense of the carefree, unfettered relating when we pause to articulate our codes of conduct. I, too, yearn for such liberated communities, and cherish them when available.

However, I don't think we can, as a society, afford to make assumptions. What's not explicit often exists, as I've tried to illustrate in sibling comments, implicitly and politics—ie the distribution of power amongst individuals—always exist. They're better when they're explicit.

Even between only two people! Every relationship should stand on the basis of explicit boundaries and expectations. It's often said that asking and checking such boundaries "kills the mood," and I think you're making a similar argument. The rebuttal is that relationships are much safer, and therefore deeper and valuable, when boundaries are explicit. They're worth it, every time, from 2 individuals to 7 billion.

Explicating boundaries might even be a fundamental necessity of relating, in an informative, topological sense.

I think codes of conduct become relevant somewhere between 100 and 1,000 people, organizationally.

Around the point you’re transitioning to more political structuring because simpler mechanisms break down.

The unexamined political structure still exists.

As it is said, "In the days when Sussman was a novice..."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970937

What conditions define the eventual 100-person code of conduct? Implicit and explicit codes of conduct implemented by scales 0-99.

It's hardly over-eager when it's easily copy-pasted.

That is quiet an inference to make. You are just making an unsobstantiated ad hominem attack.

I there's a strong enough correlation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com