Live data from Hacker News

Reasonable Person Principle

cs.cmu.edu

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#51
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't see that "helping other people in another class cheat" is violating the honour code then you might benefit from taking the time to do so. > Failure to realize the consequences of a course of action does not justify it. https://deans.caltech.edu/documents/24878/Honor_Code_Handboo...

> If you can't see that "helping other people in another class cheat" is violating the honour code then you might benefit from taking the time to do so. I did, and I didn't see how. If Alice is helping Bob cheat, Bob is the one taking unfair advantage of others, not Alice. For all you know, Alice could be offering to help everyone cheat. It's not like I'm saying something outlandish here. There's a reason most places…

Alice is taking a small unfair advantage of every member of the community at once. A community and its practices is a form of commons shared by the members, so it's vulnerable to the tragedy of the commons. If one member acts in a way that deliberately goes against the trust, that's inherently unfair to the rest of the members because it tends to push everything toward a breaking point. If her goal depends on the community's existence or function (which if it doesn't, why is she even around?), then whatever her goal, Alice has gone after it in a way that takes unfair advantage of everyone else's commitment to the system. Even if Alice's action doesn't cause a final breakdown, she's moved things in the wrong direction for her own purposes.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#52
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you insist on following an honor code while competing against people who are ready to take an unfair advantage of you, you lose.

So nothing would change since some Caltech members are also ready

How dare you suggest that?

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#53
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you insist on following an honor code while competing against people who are ready to take an unfair advantage of you, you lose.

> If you insist on following an honor code while competing against people who are ready to take an unfair advantage of you, you lose. "Unfair" is in there. If you are competing against a person who will pull out all the stops against you, then there is nothing unfair about pulling out all the stops against them.

So, tit-for-tat?

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can't see that "helping other people in another class cheat" is violating the honour code then you might benefit from taking the time to do so. I did, and I didn't see how. If Alice is helping Bob cheat, Bob is the one taking unfair advantage of others, not Alice. For all you know, Alice could be offering to help everyone cheat. It's not like I'm saying something outlandish here. There's a reason most places…

Alice is taking a small unfair advantage of every member of the community at once. A community and its practices is a form of commons shared by the members, so it's vulnerable to the tragedy of the commons. If one member acts in a way that deliberately goes against the trust, that's inherently unfair to the rest of the members because it tends to push everything toward a breaking point. If her goal depends on the com…

> Alice is taking a small unfair advantage of every member of the community at once.

Interesting take, I like it; thanks! Let me mull over it a bit... it's making me wonder whether the existence of any personal benefits (by Alice) are a necessary component of a violation.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#55
I'm curious how these two work together:

> Everyone expects everyone else to be reasonable.

> Do not be offended if someone suggests you are not being reasonable.

To me this is something like "assume good faith" but also "others may accuse you of acting in good faith"?

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#56
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CoCs arose because of endemic abuses that were not organically curbed, sadly.

Not sure one should believe that - everyone with even mild experience of public spaces knows that at the end of the day rules are enforced by people. Doesn't matter if you pour a few liters of woke over the system, it's still the same system. I'm ready to believe in a conspiracy theory around codes of conduct, actually.

Making unspoken rules public saves everyone time and heartache.

Except perhaps where there are too many contrarians, folks looking for a problem, authors who are being intentionally vague, or acts of malicious compliance.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#57
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I question the need for CoCs. It seemed they simply started appearing everywhere one day as if following some sort of trend. People organize together everyday in numerous different professional, community and private settings…with no need for a special set of governing rules for behavior.

CoCs arose because of endemic abuses that were not organically curbed, sadly.

They arose as a way to make it easier to kick people out because you don't feel you have to take accountability for the decision. If the one making the decision is strong (emotionally) they don't need a CoC to kick someone out. Linus can kick the bcachefs developer out of the kernel simply because he wants to. Heck, when he banned all those Russian developers for presumably valid legal reasons, he still wouldn't say the reasons.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

immibis explains why that is better in one of the comment threads above: > The main purpose of a CoC is to point to it when you want to ban someone. It's an accountability sink - instead of saying you want to ban someone, you say you have to ban them because they violated the written rules.

You completely missed that u/immibis was being sardonic.

Not at all. That's exactly how CoCs are used in practice. Have you ever witnessed a CoC-related dispute?
Post reply on HN