Public Apology to Jeremy Howard • Hacker News Board

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#251

Post by marcinzm » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:27 AM UTC

robocat wrote: post #123

Dylan16807 wrote: post #19

This is a good response as far as the actual process goes, but it doesn't really do anything to address the claims that "There were two totally different Codes of Conduct with different requirements linked in different places" and "I was held to a different, undocumented and uncommunicated standard"

I read the apology without knowing the backstory. It just feels so weasel-worded: they apologise for their process but certainly don’t make any suggestion that was innocent so actually increasing the smear. A proper apology also needs personal, private apologies from the committee members. I can only hope that Jeremy receives a better apology than this for the shit he has been made to chew by them.

They don't believe he was innocent, at best they believe the question is still up for debate and at worst they believe he is guilty but are putting off a public claim until things calm down.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#252

Post by harlanji » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:28 AM UTC

marcinzm wrote: post #131

harlanji wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At very least the action is something to point to, and maintain reputation. Almost 5 years ago a hostile employer did this to me and since then most of my huge former network built over 15+ years have stopped associating with me and are starting to assume I’m mentally ill and hung up on it, but in truth I simply can’t work anymore due to the reference check process having been compromised and former associates lackin…

Except their apology doesn't do what you're saying as it doesn't say he was innocent or that he didn't violate the CoC. It simply says they didn't fully follow their process and that if he wants to appeal the board will hear it. As I read it he is still considered guilty unless the board accepts the appeal. edit: And since he seems too emotionally exhausted by this to deal with it further there will possibly be no ap…

What I’m saying is that the statement “and they apologized” is true and very significant. It’s extremely uncommon to get that much. Picturing a job interview scenario. People are all emotion and that fragment does the job. Not picturing IRC with a bunch of invested people here, in which case yes, your point is logically valid there.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#253

Post by marcinzm » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:35 AM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #190

This is a classic non-apology. It’s well-written enough that it sounds good on quick read, but let’s break it down: 1. They use “We’re sorry you feel that way” to recast the issue as a simple miscommunication. > We acknowledge that it was an extremely stressful experience, being summoned to an interview with several members of a committee, after a week had passed, and without knowing the nature of the complaint. 2. N…

Given some of the Twitter replies they've succeeded in their PR move of making the controversy go away with the least change, growth or cost to themselves.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#254

Post by ksdale » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:40 AM UTC

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #250

ksdale wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think it'd be better if Riot just didn't say anything about it?

Yes. The amount of abuse would be the same, but there would be one less hammer for zealots to attack heretics with.

I'm rather skeptical that the only effect of CoCs is to allow for the persecution of innocent people... Agree to disagree, I suppose.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#255

Post by baobabKoodaa » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:48 AM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #254

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The amount of abuse would be the same, but there would be one less hammer for zealots to attack heretics with.

I'm rather skeptical that the only effect of CoCs is to allow for the persecution of innocent people... Agree to disagree, I suppose.

Please don't resort to strawman arguments. I didn't say that all CoCs are useless in curbing abuse. I said that Valorant's CoC is useless in curbing abuse. As far as I can tell, Valorant is doing absolutely nothing to enforce their CoC against toxic players.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#256

Post by ksdale » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:50 AM UTC

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #255

ksdale wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm rather skeptical that the only effect of CoCs is to allow for the persecution of innocent people... Agree to disagree, I suppose.

Please don't resort to strawman arguments. I didn't say that all CoCs are useless in curbing abuse. I said that Valorant's CoC is useless in curbing abuse. As far as I can tell, Valorant is doing absolutely nothing to enforce their CoC against toxic players.

Apologies, do you have a CoC in mind that you think works?

And I’ve got an email from Riot that they banned someone I’d reported in Valorant, so they don’t do nothing. I don’t think either of us have enough evidence to know whether it’d be better or worse without the CoC.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#257

Post by rmrfstar » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 2:08 AM UTC

Jerry2 wrote: post #106

This whole incident is like something straight out of a Kafka novel. The level of insanity in tech community is just shocking to me.

Not just Kafka, it's got a pretty nasty Orwellian side too. [1]

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190216/10394141613/faceb...

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#258

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 2:08 AM UTC

g_sch wrote: post #196

xab31 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a very effective response from Jeremy. He clearly describes his side of the story and convincingly explains why he thought he did nothing wrong. What is a little more troubling is that he (A) describes codes of conduct in detail and repeatedly affirms his allegiance to the general idea behind CoCs, including describing "previous sexual assault allegations" as "behaviors" he "strongly agrees" should be stopped.…

I think you are vastly overestimating the significance behind having a "previous CoC violation allegation on [one's] permanent record". Who's keeping, and enforcing on, permanent records of this sort? Every org is going to call this one for themselves, and the facts are out there.

[deleted]

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#259

Post by wvenable » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 2:10 AM UTC

Yetanfou wrote: post #245

wvenable wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't be a jerk I disagree. This whole situation with Jeremy is because of vague rules just like this. If I tell you that you are "wrong", you might consider me to be "jerk" and we can do this whole song and dance. What communities are trying to police and prevent is outright sexism, racism, etc. For that, being explicit is better than just offering that someone is "being a jerk".

Nope, being wrong is not being a jerk, this used to be common sense and is what we need to go back to. Feel free to change the wording on the proposed CoC from don't be a jerk to don't be an asshole or something similar, the end result should still be the same: most people will understand what is meant. Some people won't but that can not be helped. The more elaborate the code, the more it will be used for other purpo…

I don't know how you can make this argument when this exact situation is caused by the very thing you are advocating for. “Be welcoming”, “Be considerate”, and “Be friendly” is something most people understand as much as "asshole" and "jerk". And yet here we are -- the counterexample is literally this topic.

Re: Public Apology to Jeremy Howard

#260

Post by baobabKoodaa » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 2:34 AM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #256

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't resort to strawman arguments. I didn't say that all CoCs are useless in curbing abuse. I said that Valorant's CoC is useless in curbing abuse. As far as I can tell, Valorant is doing absolutely nothing to enforce their CoC against toxic players.

Apologies, do you have a CoC in mind that you think works? And I’ve got an email from Riot that they banned someone I’d reported in Valorant, so they don’t do nothing. I don’t think either of us have enough evidence to know whether it’d be better or worse without the CoC.

> And I’ve got an email from Riot that they banned someone I’d reported in Valorant, so they don’t do nothing. I don’t think either of us have enough evidence to know whether it’d be better or worse without the CoC.

To the contrary, it's pretty easy to deduce that the CoC had nothing to do with the ban of the player you reported. Do you genuinely believe that a "CoC enforcement committee" sat down to review demos of the reported player and analyze whether their actions constituted CoC violations? No, that process is reserved for political enemies and occasional power trips. The ban was almost certainly a result of an automated process. For example, in CS:GO, if a player receives significantly more abuse reports than average, they will be muted by default. No human review is involved. I imagine the Valorant ban is something similar, because there is no way Riot could afford to pay actual humans to go through these reports.