[Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 09/22/2016 04:54 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:12 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
> <pelzflorian at pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>> If there is a code of conduct, the dispute resolution process looks like
>> this: “What you did is *exactly* what is forbidden by the code of
>> conduct, so you are wrong. Case closed.”
> 
>  ... which means (implies) a number things, both of which are
> sufficiently serious problems such that i fundamentally disagree that
> a CoC should be present:
> 
>  (1) there has to *be* a set and pre-thought-out definition -
> associated directly with the project - in list form - some of the most
> horrible, aggressive and generally obnoxious forms of behaviour ever
> known to man.  to even have such a list of "don't"s has been
> demonstrated time and time again to be an extremely bad idea.
> 
>  (2) the list *is* a set list... it can only be incomplete, thus
> defeating the object and purpose of *having* the list in the first
> place.
> 
>  (3) the list is an open invitation to attack the purpose of the
> project by way of those definitions (that's if people read it in the
> first place)
> 
>  (4) as mentioned in the previous message, anyone who *doesn't* read
> it will just attack anyway.
> 
>  thus we can see that having any "list" of "conduct which does not
> conform to the quotes code quotes" is not just useless, it's *far
> worse* than useless, it actually brings down the entire tone of the
> project.
> 
>  have you ever heard of "victim mentality"?  it's where people FEAR
> something... and thus INVITE people to attack them on precisely that
> which they fear.  examples include people walking down the street
> looking afraid, clutching their handbag: any mugger in the vicinity
> will instantly go "ah ha!  someone has something to hide that they
> fear losing!  it must be valuable!  ATTACK!!!!"
> 
>  a "Code of Conduct" is therefore an OPEN INVITATION for people to attack.
> 
>  so i'll say it again, so it's really really clear: there will be *NO*
> "code of conduct" deployed for ANYTHING related to EOMA68 over which i
> have any direct responsibility and/or authority.
> 
>> With just the bill of ethics,
>> you may have a discussion on whether it really causes a distraction or
>> whether the victim should just accept it instead of making a fuss. Now
>> that discussion may have the same result, but it is more demanding on
>> everyone, especially the victim.
> 
>  are you talking about the ethical violator considering themselves to
> be the "victim"?  or are you referring to the people whom the ethical
> violator may have adversely affected (by having had their Truth, Love,
> Awareness or Creativity reduced by the ethical violator)?
> 
>  if you are referring to the person (or persons) who have had T.L.A.C.
> reduced (in direct violation of the Bill of Ethics) as "victims", then
> firstly that's not an appropriate term to use (in the context of the
> Bill of Ethics), but secondly even if you did consider them to *be*
> victims, if they make a stand and say "scuse me but there's been a
> reduction in my T.L.A.C and it's relevant to this project" then
> immediately it becomes possible to take appropriate action.
> 
>  when we think of people as "victims", what it actually means is -
> don't be too shocked by this, it's hinted at above by the well-known
> phrase "Victim Mentality" - that they *invited* that attack.  it is
> within *their* mind-set to *be* victimISED.
> 
>  this may sound really really shocking and cruel, but it's not.  i
> won't go into detail on a spiritual level or make any references which
> i would normally do in private conversations as it might be totally
> misunderstood, so we'll keep it to the "logical and rational".
> 
>  now, does this mean that just because someone has within their
> mindset a feeling of "victimisation" that people *should* attack them?
>  of course not!  but, people being what they are, opposites attract:
> they often cannot help themselves, so they ATTACK.
> 
>  can we BLAME both parties for the resultant mess? NO we cannot.
> 
>  can we HELP both parties?  mmm.... maybe.  that's down to them.
> 
>  should we weigh the pro's and con's of getting both the "victim" and
> the "attacker" to on the one hand stop being a "victim" and likewise
> the other to stop being an "attacker"?  yes we should.
> 
>  why should we do that assessment (even before and even over-and-above
> assessing exactly what it was that they did)
> 
>  because it may turn out that, even though both parties
> (independently) may have some extremely valuable contribution to the
> set goal, *BOTH* parties (independently) may feel that their goal "use
> this project as an excuse to be a victim" and "use this project as an
> excuse to be an attacker" is *MORE* important (independently) to them
> than the goal that they declared, contractually, to be a part of.
> 
> (in other words, each of the parties CONTRACTUALLY failed - when they
> signed up to the "Bill of Ethics" to comprehend the nature of what it
> was that they were signing and agreeing to.  the goal IS the goal.
> there is NO other goal.  and extending the goal to include "personal
> bitch-fest -ism related attacks on other people" *AUTOMATICALLY*
> constitutes violation of the contract by way of endeavouring to expand
> the goal without the consent of the other signatories to the
> contract).
> 
>  thus, if one, other, or BOTH parties - regardless of "quotes who did
> what quotes" refuses to apologise and/or adapt and/or prioritise the
> goal *over and above* whatever grievances they might have, we might
> end up activating the clause in the Bill of Ethics which excludes
> (ejects) one, the other, or BOTH parties!
> 
>  obviously, the favourable outcome is that they both say "oops, sorry,
> won't do it again, will focus properly on the goal now, we both
> promise"...
> 
>  now.  do you know of *any* "Code of Conduct" that can be this
> flexible, this forgiving, and yet be so basic and fundamental, all at
> the same time?  because i certainly don't!  the "Code of Conduct" that
> you referred to is a *horrible* document when viewed in light of the
> above!  it *reaffirms* the status of the person being attacked,
> reinforces that status, does *nothing* to help them out of the mindset
> which caused them to be attacked, it does *nothing* for the attacker,
> aside from ostracising them from one group, where they will quite
> likely just find another, and many many other flaws which to be honest
> i just want to stop enumerating them because even just one of those
> flaws is enough for me to say ABSOLUTELY NOT: the fact that i can,
> after all this analysis, find not one but SIX separate distinct
> fundamentally fatal and completely intolerable flaws...
> 
>  so. can you now *finally* see how completely fundamentally flawed any
> kind of "Code of Conduct" document is going to be, compared to any
> document similar to the "Bill of Ethics"?
> 
>  a similar analogy would be, in terms of SQL-related design, is that
> Code of Conduct Documents are "2nd Normalised Form" (look it up if
> you're not familiar with that).  the Bill of Ethics is "3rd Normalised
> Form", and the definition of an "Ethical Act" would be "4th Normalised
> Form".
> 
>  i operate at the level of "3rd to 4th normalise form".  where i need
> "2nd normalised form" i typically write code generators.  however i
> have found that every single automated code-generator has problems
> (many of them fundamental and inherently flawed at the design level),
> and i have had to resort to using weakly-typed languages (python for
> example) and to go to 3rd normalised form that performs on-demand SQL
> (or other code) generation.
> 
>  interestingly i very very rarely program at the 4th normalised form
> level: it's too much hassle :)
> 
> l.

We need not continue this discussion and could instead wait and see. It
hopefully will not ever matter. I fear taking away too much of your time
when you have more urgent things to do.

But I am still unconvinced; let me list the points of disagreement
and/or possible misunderstandings:

possible misunderstanding:
A code of conduct is – unlike the bill of ethics – not even meant to be
complete and *not* intended as a replacement for the bill of ethics. It
is more like when there is precedent for a decision so when the
circumstances are the same, a decision is simple and no discussion is
needed. (Yes, some communities use the CoC for more than a list of
uncontroversial statements; this is not what I am asking for.)

possible misunderstanding:
Yes, a code of conduct is not a panacea; there will still be bad people
and there will still be trolls. It is only meant to help in *some* cases.

possible misunderstanding:
A code of conduct just (for the issues it covers) makes clear who is in
the wrong. A punishment need not be specified and need not be harsh.

disagreement:
Having a list of very general bad things does *not* make people do bad
things. A code of conduct is not like a list of unpatched security
vulnerabilities. There are codes of conduct that have been refined time
and again to not contain bad things.

disagreement:
More importantly, when it comes to harassment, the harassment is always
inappropriate no matter what the victim of the harassment did. Often
victims don’t make a legitimate complaint because they fear victim
blaming. By victim I mean the victim of a concrete act (with “T.L.A.C.
reduced”), not that the person is always a victim.