Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PyCon Code of Conduct changed to avoid public shaming

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 387 posts

Re: PyCon Code of Conduct changed to avoid public shaming

#221

Post by freehunter »

mtrimpe wrote: post #179
freehunter wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good god this is so false. I cannot even begin to comprehend that someone would make the statement that anyone supporting women's rights will be automatically downvoted on Hacker News. You can't imagine any other reason the post would be downvoted? How about the statement that you shouldn't say anything you wouldn't want tweeted out of context? How about calling Twitter "tweeter"? Or the implication that this guy had…

If you take a look at my comment history you'll see that I tend to comment on womens rights issues quite frequently, since I'm LGBT myself so their cause is quite close to my heart. I can tell you from experience that I've seen my votes go up and down 5 or 10 points easily when I comment on topics like these. I've never noticed that for any other comments I make.

I could understand your statement if the post in question was a worthwhile contribution to a discussion, was well formatted, and had a reasonable writing style (grammar and spelling). But with as many flaws as the post had, attributing the downvotes purely to an apparently large population of misogynists on HN seems to be a strawman designed to further the already controversial discussion at hand.

Re: PyCon Code of Conduct changed to avoid public shaming

#222

Post by tomjen3 »

Cushman wrote: post #96
drharris wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to believe that offense is subjective to the individual. Should we then be responsible for everything we do that offends others? What level of recourse should they have for being offended? If we think that punitive action is appropriate given an offense, how do we determine what a legitimate offense is, versus a non-legitimate offense?

> Should we then be responsible for everything we do that offends others? Yes. > What level of recourse should they have for being offended? If we think that punitive action is appropriate given an offense, how do we determine what a legitimate offense is, versus a non-legitimate offense? If people finding out publicly that you did it would cause you to lose your job, that might be a good indicator.

I take offense that somebody as stupid as you could post on this forum.

Please cut of your hands.

See how that doesn't make any sense? Heck I get offended by overly politically correct people and people who get easily offended.

Re: PyCon Code of Conduct changed to avoid public shaming

#223

Post by jlgreco »

RougeFemme wrote: post #206
jlgreco wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you spoke up in that conversation on the train, do you think you would normally be well received? No. Although you could technically hear it, it was nevertheless a private conversation. I suspect there is probably an element of culture at play here. Having spent a good deal of time in cities, I see absolutely no connection between being able to overhear a conversation, and that conversation not being private. In f…

I don't believe that "if I can hear it, it isn't private". On the other hand, if I'm saying something that I know could be overheard and offensive, I usually choose my words a little more carefully, especially when I will be in close proximity to others for a while - like when I'm sitting at a conference, in a movie theater, etc. On the third hand, I recognize that everyone's filter is calibrated a little differently…

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. I merely am voicing a point of view to counter those who seem to find it inconceivable that these people thought they were engaging in private conversation. I find it highly probable that they, while fully aware of the fact that they were in a mildly dense crowd, considered themselves to be having a private conversation.

Re: PyCon Code of Conduct changed to avoid public shaming

#224

Post by SallySinep »

jack_trades wrote: post #175
dos1 wrote: post #27

One of the reasons I've taken an interest in this whole fiasco is that I occasionally make "colorful" jokes. Not dissimilar from the two guys at PyCon. I make every attempt to keep these jokes private between my friends and I, but I'm sure others have heard me make them. Some people might find them funny, others may be offended. It scares me to think that making an offhand penis joke could result in being publicly ou…

Public shame is not a problem. Public shame is less about an individual and more about sharing expectations with a community. Shame on people who can't help but blurt out clumsy penis jokes in essentially tight quarters at a professional conference. Go and make colorful jokes everywhere and then defend yourself on twitter. Who's stopping you/them? They have twitter accounts, no? Represent yourselves. More words tell…

Also, wordplay on forking a repo is particularly anti-social.

Would you care to recite the exact wording used in the forking remark for us?

Otherwise, how are we to know that it was "wordplay", or otherwise anti-social or inappropriate?

Re: PyCon Code of Conduct changed to avoid public shaming

#225

Post by rdtsc »

fyi80 wrote: post #145
rdtsc wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then those employers should be punished via the same public shaming mechanism. If this is the new way to do things, fine, but it works both ways. Never heard of PlayHeaven before. Now it is on my black list. I will make sure to remember it. Unless I read a public apology with an offer to hire him back, I will make sure to go out of my way to let everyone know about them. PyCon -- making off color jokes is reason to t…

It doesn't work both ways, because the employer is not subject to the same external pressures that the employee is. The employer answers to the general public, the employee answers to one easily-scared manager. It's related, but not equivalent.

I meant it is similar in how public shaming and humiliation is accepted as a valid way to deal with such situations.

Initially it was probably done more to companies. It is probably the most efficient way to get a large corporation to listen to a customer -- fear of public shaming.

Adria applied it a personal level and in the context of a tech conference. That was the "new" twist here.

From an external point of view a scared manager, a small pyramid of scared managers, or a single owner doesn't matter. I see it as a corporate response. That is what makes manager's job hard -- making such decisions. He made a bad decision, the company or higher ups haven't responded yet, or apologized.

Re: PyCon Code of Conduct changed to avoid public shaming

#226

Post by tbrownaw »

robomartin wrote: post #115
dos1 wrote: post #27

One of the reasons I've taken an interest in this whole fiasco is that I occasionally make "colorful" jokes. Not dissimilar from the two guys at PyCon. I make every attempt to keep these jokes private between my friends and I, but I'm sure others have heard me make them. Some people might find them funny, others may be offended. It scares me to think that making an offhand penis joke could result in being publicly ou…

In many ways, the issue here boils down to what happened to these guys in the context of having joked around with each other in a private conversation. And what happened is tragic. Someone got fired for it. Someone's livelihood was affected by this. Not to mention the emotional shock this surely caused. What's right and what's wrong? Sometimes the answer isn't easy. Private conversations between friends have been kno…

Private conversations between friends have been known to have content that surely someone, somewhere is bound to find offensive.

We were short on cubicles a while back, and about half a dozen people from the team I'm on were sharing a conference room as an office. They kept a counter on the wall, for "number of times we would have been called to talk to HR today, if we left the door open and were overheard".

Then there's the question, perhaps legal, of what actually constitutes a private conversation protected by privacy laws. Does one have the right to publish the contents of someone else's private conversation, whether it was overheard or picked-up via intentional or unintentional surveillance? I don't know.

I looked into this a little bit, from what I remember it more-or-less corresponds to whether the people in question know (or could reasonably expect) that they're in public and is about the same as the rules regarding eavesdroppers and peeping toms (or maybe it's exactly the same and the laws don't care about technology?).

Re: PyCon Code of Conduct changed to avoid public shaming

#227

Post by RougeFemme »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #178
dos1 wrote: post #27

One of the reasons I've taken an interest in this whole fiasco is that I occasionally make "colorful" jokes. Not dissimilar from the two guys at PyCon. I make every attempt to keep these jokes private between my friends and I, but I'm sure others have heard me make them. Some people might find them funny, others may be offended. It scares me to think that making an offhand penis joke could result in being publicly ou…

Is it really that hard to act like a professional adult while you're at work? The simplest solution is to simply stop telling penis jokes at work.

Agreed. But there are obviously huge differences in definitions for acting like a professional adult. I think people even disagree on when/where you should have to act like a professional adult - if at all.

Re: PyCon Code of Conduct changed to avoid public shaming

#230

Post by niggler »

SeanDav wrote: post #185
mtrimpe wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a private conversation. I can't even ignore the conversation of annoying people three seats down in the train. When people in the seat behind me will start talking during a conference there would be no way for me not to listen to their conversation.

Just because you have good hearing and/or are incapable of focusing on something else does not make the conversation less private. A private conversation is one that is intended to occur only between the parties involved. Your being able to hear it or not is irrelevant if the intention and expectation was that the conversation is meant to be between specific parties. I understand this is not completely black and whit…

"A private conversation is one that is intended to occur only between the parties involved."

What are your thoughts on the Romney 47% remark? (that was recorded by a bartender at the event)

Post reply on HN