On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, > > On Jan 24, 2016 9:31 AM, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi! > . > > > > > day. To state an obvious question - what precisely is the status quo > > > in comparison to a COC? Ad-hoc bans by whoever has access to the ML? > > > > Yes, status quo is pretty much that. > > IIRC we needed it one, two times > > over 20 years? And it worked fine then. Now, maybe it's time to improve > > on it, but the data so far does not show we're in failure mode. > > I think it reasonable to think we don'g have data, at all. Yes we have two > cases which were so obvious that we had to handle them. > > For anything we have nothing. This proposal will give us more data about > how we are, how we feel, etc. If anything this is good. > > > So I > > find a hard focus on bans be a bit strange - for something that we'd use > > maybe once per 10 years, it gets a lot of time spent on it. > > I think we should have used temporary bans a bit more to cool down things. > Including to myself along other. > Hi all, I've been mostly staying out of these discussions because I'm focusing my time and energy on things that will hopefully be more valuable than just weighing in with another opinion on this issue. However, I do feel the need to state this because I haven't seen it stated by anyone else yet (maybe I missed it?) and everyone in this thread seems calm, collected, and reasonable: I think focusing on the extreme behaviors is harmful towards a mature and progressive discussion on these matters. My opinion is based on two premises: 1. Good opsec, which career criminals and dedicated harassers would be incentivized to adopt, can completely thwart any CoC we could come up with. A good example would be DOXBIN, which hosted peoples' personal information (their "dox") on a Tor hidden service and thumbed its nose to law enforcement for years. The operator, Nachash, is still free. At no point in time has an arrest been made. 2. If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you create a tool meant for dealing with the most extreme harassers, and you will never CATCH them, all that happens is you create a system for potentially inflicting damage on less extreme transgressors. Focusing on the existence/nonexistence/frequency of extreme harassment is a non-starter. Yes, you might think you only need it once every 10 years now. Maybe it turns out we need it once per week and we were blind to the abuses that were occurring. Or maybe it turns out we don't ever need it at all, but we've created a process for harassment by proxy. Extreme harassment needs to be dealt with by specialized professionals, i.e. law enforcement, clinical therapists, and mental health professionals. We shouldn't even consider them in scope. So I disagree that notions such as, "IIRC we needed it one, two times over 20 years?" are worth any future consideration. Let's start with a solution that is appropriate for 50% or more of situations, and take it one step at a time. There are no 100% or even 99% solutions from day one. That's all I have to say at the moment. I'm going to go back to addressing technical problems; human problems are beyond me to solve adequately. Scott Arciszewski Chief Development Officer Paragon Initiative Enterprises <https://paragonie.com/>
