The Code Of Conduct - <AUTHOR> http://jessenoller.com/blog/2012/12/7/the-code-of-conduct <comment><USER2> Codes of Conduct are always good, zero-tolerance polices on the other hand are usually a bit extreme.

What starts out as well intentioned zero-tolerance policy usually ends up in absurdity. Like zero-tolerance policies in schools that started as banning weapons and now prevent students from bringing meals that need to be eaten with knife and fork. Hopefully they are able to keep the zero-tolerance policy to mean what everyone thinks it means now.

<comment><USER3> I've got two kids in school. I know the pain of the inane zero tolerance policies such as those. However, harassment in any form, when corroborated, is just unacceptable.

<comment><USER4> > "harassment in any form"

This is the crux of the main problem with zero tolerance stances. That "in any form" gets interpreted in the widest possible way possible beyond the point of absurdity. This is because it is an absolute stance in a realm which is inherently subjective and relative to the various points of view involved.

> "when corroborated"

I think this helps with this a bit, as it requires at least one (hopefully more) other subjective view on whether it was harassment or not. Hopefully it will be enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if this kind of thing would stand up in court? Is it even legal to expulse people with no refund when the guidelines are vague?

Personally I don't go to conferences for the same reasons I don't go to concerts -- too expensive when video is much better -- but I would be pissed if they threw me out for not measuring up to the arbitrary standards of some random enforcer of political correctness or for (horror) talking to girls in an elevator.

<comment><USER6> Oof, you're getting downvoted right from the get-go. I disagree with your stance, but better to talk about this than to just blindly vote you into oblivion.

First, yes, it's legal to throw people out of a private event for any reason you'd like. They can be mad at _you_ for your vagueness, but being vague isn't a crime. ("Thank god!" say a thousand programmers and designers who've been forced to make presentations or give speeches – I kid, I kid.)

Second, your little "for (horror) talking to girls in an elevator" struck me as a snotty little dig at a serious issue. I know that you're most likely taking a shot at the Rebecca Watson affair [[http://www.metafilter.com/105214/the-existence-of-greater- cr...](http://www.metafilter.com/105214/the-existence-of-greater-crimes-does- not-excuse-lesser-crimes)], but some users might not, and your snideless passes over the complications involved in that incident.

Would you say that men, all men, take it for granted that they know how women feel about possible male aggression in private situations, especially late at night? That they know women have legitimate reasons to be worried about strange men who confront them, even in a seemingly harmless manner, in private situations? Would you say that women have a right to speak about their feelings on this topic, explain why they feel the way that they feel, or even just vent about how bothered they get by those situations?

Rebecca Watson didn't get anybody "thrown out" of the World Atheist Convention, she discussed an incident that happened there, and some people got really bothered that she considered it an incident. It was a complete flustercuck, not because talking to a woman on an elevator is HORRIBLE RAMPANT MISOGYNY, but because there are reasons why Watson found the gesture creepy, and there were many man – from your post, you included – who simply refused to admit that Watson had any legitimate point whatsoever.

Which is why, by the way, these codes of conduct are necessary. It's not necessarily that _you_ would do something horribly wrong or alienating or offensive, but if something as simple as "being hit on at 4am by a strange man" is still sneered at as a legitimate concern, then probably some people think they're entitled to far grosser and more outlandish actions as well. And that means that either women might be actively harassed (possibly even assaulted), or they'll feel like they're not actually a part of the group, and then they'll leave, and the community will be immeasurably diminished for their leaving.

Again, the downvoters were wrong to knock you down – your opinion was relevant to the discussion and stated concisely – but your attitude here is exactly the problem which codes of conduct will attempt to enforce. I doubt anybody will miss your presence at the conferences, or at those expensive concerts for that matter. Enjoy trying to mosh in your own living room. :-P

<comment><USER5> No you are right, I cannot fanthom that anybody could feel threatened by a geek who talks to her in an elevator, no matter the time.

Stranger rape (as opposed to date rape) is so extreemly rare that it makes the news when it does happen -- and it will almost certainly not happen in a conference elevator. Especially when there is a lot of males around -- who are glamoring for a chance to be the hero.

<comment><USER7> It really makes me sad to see on HN arguments of the form, "I cannot understand/perceive X, therefore it is unimportant."

I get that you can't fathom it. But so what? Nobody put you in charge of deciding when people should feel unsafe. Or whether I should have sympathy for those who do. Or whether we, as a community, are willing to let a lot of otherwise useful contributors walk away because they don't feel safe.

I don't want to be a hero. Heroes need villains. I want a good conference, where everybody feels safe and welcome and we can all focus on learning. And this seems like a step in the right direction.

<comment><USER8> This reminds me of that Homer Simpson quote:

 _Hey! Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand._

<comment><USER6> Homer Simpson isn't a role model. He's apathetic, stupid, and constantly convinced that he's more important of a man than he is. In fact, he's more a critique of that kind of man than an endorsement.

It's telling that Homer's redemptive characteristics are that he's capable of loving his wife and his children, and through his love, he's willing to realize that his opinions on things, his actions, are not perfect just because they're his. He can admit to being wrong; he can start caring; he can grow, ever-so-slowly, as a man.

<comment><USER8> I'm not suggesting that a person model their behavior after Homer.

The point I'm making in quoting him is that caring and understanding are distinct axes. You can care/understand, not care/not understand, not care/understand (Homer), and care/not understand. Each of these ways of being tends to bring different results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Thank you for this, Jesse, if you're reading. Python people embarrass us Rubyists yet again. ;)

<comment><USER3> Ha. You're welcome.

<comment><USER10> Seriously Kudos. It makes me sad that you had to put that much effort into an explanation of something this straight forward, but the result is a very nice, well-reasoned argument that is hard to argue with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm glad to see this Code of Conduct. Seems to me that most men are unaware of what women endure in terms of harassment, both from people they know and from strangers.

Putting everyone on notice that such behavior won't be tolerated is a big step in the right direction.

</comment><comment><USER12> "D stands for Diversity"

It's a shame that has to even be stated ... the articles we've been seeing are related to technical events. How about we attempt to show each other a modicum of respect and argue the technical points without getting personal? And what place is there for harassment in polite society? My gramma often noted that it doesn't cost you anything to be polite or friendly.</comment>