12 comments

[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 44.8 ms ] thread
I've always interpreted rock star to mean an amazing coder/hacker/architect; not as a personality trait.

I did a double take when reading the headline. Why would we want to stop these amazing people?

Update: I never took personality into account when interpreting "rock star"

I think it's meant as that being amazing in the job shouldn't be an excuse for being a terrible person.

While I generally agree with the post (I only skimmed it yet), I am skeptical that it can be completely realized. There are many examples from history of terrible people succeeding, because they were really good at their jobs. If a community gets rid of them completely, it will put itself at a disadvantage. You know, evolution/game theory is a bitch and all that.

> Start with the assumption that harassment reports are true and investigate them thoroughly

Now here's one thing that's certain to not be abused. Ever.

brb, reading again on donglegate.

Agreed. I'm all for investigating reports of bad behavior, but starting with any assumptions is a bad idea.
Taken very literally, it seems to contradict itself -- if we're assuming the reports are true, why even investigate?

The authors are responding to a tendency to assume harassment reports are false, and then not investigate.

We can see there is large zone of action between these two ideas. It's probably fair to say: don't dismiss harassment reports, investigate them.

Yep. This is completely against how modern society deals with problems. We don't assume criminals are guilty until proven innocent, it's the other way around. The way a lot of these types want people to believe stuff with no evidence behind it because it's 'the right thing to do' is rather scary to be honest.

It's also a worrying symbol of a world where accusations seems to be more and more seen as evidence of guilt by the accused party. Where trial by media or court of public opinion seems to be valued more than the actual truth.

So no, we shouldn't automatically assume they're true. Investigate them sure, but treat it like any other crime or misbehaviour.

In the US, is very common for people who are arrested to be given the alternatives:

1. post a bail bond

2. incarceration

pending trial. I'm not offering an opinion on whether this is right or whether the US is a modern society. Just pointing to the reality of how the US deals with accusations of criminal behavior.

》Seriously, “rock stars” are arrogant narcissists.

How this is not an abuse?

> Overall, the approach that has the fewest downsides is to establish a policy that no one can date within their reporting chain or across major differences in power, that romantic relationships need to be disclosed, and that if anyone forms a relationship with someone in the same reporting chain, the participants need to move around the organization until they no longer share a reporting chain.

How about you fuck off from the private lives of your staff.

This attitude along with the article is abusive and dangerous.

They basically suggest setting up anonymous bully stops.

> Make it easy for victims to find and coordinate with each other

I understand the author is probably unbalanced but what scares me is the people supporting this sort of stuff.

> To fight this, encourage and support private affinity groups for marginalized groups (especially people who identify as women in a way that is significant to them), create formal systems that allow for anonymous or pseudonymous reporting such as an ombudsperson or third-party ethics hotline, support and promote people who are trusted contact points and/or advocates for marginalized groups, and reward people for raising difficult but necessary problems.

50% of humanity is not a marginalized group. Anonymous reporting will always be abused.

Reporting will always be abused.