|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

I don't get it

I don't get it

Posted Dec 2, 2010 0:35 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
In reply to: I don't get it by dlang
Parent article: The dark side of open source conferences

"after all, what can the organisers do other than to call the cops on your behalf, but if you aren't willing to talk to the cops about the issue, there's not much that the organisers can do about it"

There's plenty the organisers can do. They can eject the individual concerned. They can prevent them from attending the conference in future. They can let other conference organisers know what trouble they had and how they dealt with it. They can make it clear that this kind of behaviour is not tolerated. They are in no way bound by a requirement that law enforcement be involved, and if they insist on that then they are failing in their duty towards their attendees.

It's a scale. Some inappropriate acts can be dealt with by simply taking the person concerned aside and suggesting that they modify their behaviour. Other acts are sufficiently serious that the involvement of law enforcement may be required even if the victim isn't willing to do so themselves. But they're different extremes of the same thing, and talking about both in the same context isn't mixing things up.


to post comments

I don't get it

Posted Dec 2, 2010 2:07 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (15 responses)

ejecting people opens the organisers up to lawsuits from the people being ejected. How many people are willing to accept that sort of liability?

and please don't say that false accusations never happen, it's been very clearly proven that they do (and to be clear, I am in no way stating or implying that the people interviewed for this article are in any way misstating what actually happened)

I don't get it

Posted Dec 2, 2010 2:41 UTC (Thu) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link] (2 responses)

*Not* ejecting people also opens organizers up to lawsuits from the people being harassed. (Especially when the harasser is a repeat offender that everyone knows about but ignores anyway. Even if we ignore the *ethical* aspects here, that'd be a *far* more difficult lawsuit to defend against.)

And, for that matter, pretty much everything else involved in running a conference *also* opens one up to lawsuits -- e.g., guess who's on the hook if some attendees trash the venue.

So we have standard ways to deal with this -- written policies (if the form when you signed up said "attendance may be revoked on whim of organizers" then you hardly have a legal leg to stand up if your attendance did get revoked), and running the conference under the auspices of a limited liability corporation with a civil liability insurance policy.

This is all so standard that when I see the liability argument I always feel like the person advancing it is just trying to find some logical justification to back up their gut reaction. Sorry if that's not the case here, but that's how I feel.

I don't get it

Posted Dec 2, 2010 7:14 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

I was in San Jose (Silicon Valley) a few weeks ago, and the hotel I was staying at apparently has problems with weekend parties.

they had a written policy that they apparently hand out to guests staying for the weekend talking about eviction if there are noise complaints.

one interesting thing about this was that it wasn't hotel security that would evict them. The hotel would call the police and have the police evict them.

If you want to throw someone out and make it stick, you really should involve the professionals, either police or other local security personnel.

if someone is merely misbehaving, telling them to calm down, but the off-color jokes, etc is very definitely appropriate for anyone who witnesses the bad behavior to do (definitely NOT limited to event staff), but if you are talking about behavior bad enough to throw someone out (the abuse/assault level of behavior) that is a different story.

I don't get it

Posted Dec 3, 2010 5:19 UTC (Fri) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]

Dunno what your hotel story has to do with anything? Are we just changing the subject from talking about the liability risks of throwing people out to talking about the exact mechanisms that should be used to do it?

Anyone who's running a conference should hopefully be competent enough to handle this kind of situation in an appropriate manner; whether that involves calling the cops is going to be situation dependent, but it's certainly an option.

I don't get it

Posted Dec 2, 2010 3:19 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (3 responses)

"ejecting people opens the organisers up to lawsuits from the people being ejected. How many people are willing to accept that sort of liability?"

Really? The terms and conditions for most conferences I've signed up to make it clear that the organisers are free to eject me if they see fit. What's the worst that can happen? Refunding of admission fee on a pro-rata basis?

"and please don't say that false accusations never happen, it's been very clearly proven that they do (and to be clear, I am in no way stating or implying that the people interviewed for this article are in any way misstating what actually happened)"

False accusations happen. It's a dreadful reality, and I feel deeply for anyone who's been affected by it. But it's a minority of situations, and while it's true that a false accusation can affect someone's life, so does sexual assault. Working on the assumption that accusations are false until proven true protects may be fine for a criminal justice system, but in a community it hurts a small number of innocents while harming a large number of innocents. If I sexually assault someone in a back room at a conference, without any witnesses, what do you expect law enforcement to do? What do you expect the outcome of me continuing to attend and speak at conferences to be? Is my victim ever going to be enthusiastic about showing up to any event I'm presenting at? Is anyone that my victim ever speaks to?

There's a straightforward way to avoid false accusations. Behave in a manner such that nobody believes you're capable of anything you're accused of. It turns out that people predisposed to inappropriate behaviour generally manage to creep out other people beforehand.

I don't get it

Posted Dec 2, 2010 4:38 UTC (Thu) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link] (1 responses)

"But it's a minority of situations"

Yes, and what on earth does it have to do with having an anti-harassment policy, anyway? Organizers can ask people to leave now, and probably have to every now and then. They could do it on flimsy pretenses already.

This is silly.

All this carping about procedure is beside the point--if there were a pattern of people running around conferences giving wedgies, and the organizers said "cut that out, or you're not welcomed", we wouldn't be having this argument.

The real argument is over whether you should feel like you screwed up because you used a "slide of bikini-clad women" for some throwaway joke. So, go browse around the wiki a little, and come back and argue specific points if you really want to.

Meanwhile, you consider this just a matter of a few thin-skinned people being "offended", and you resent being asked to visit some confusing alien ultra-politically-correct culture--fine, so just take this all as a sort of guide to the quaint customs of our culture. They're not that hard, honest. And stop worrying that you're going to be booted out for some minor slip-up--unless you're totally nuts, the worst that's going to happen is you'll have the slightly uncomfortable experience of somebody in a staff t-shirt asking you to stop doing something....

I don't get it

Posted Dec 2, 2010 6:27 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

you are very much putting words in my mouth.

I was talking strictly about the assault-level events

I don't get it

Posted Dec 2, 2010 9:08 UTC (Thu) by KSteffensen (guest, #68295) [Link]

"There's a straightforward way to avoid false accusations. Behave in a manner such that nobody believes you're capable of anything you're accused of. It turns out that people predisposed to inappropriate behaviour generally manage to creep out other people beforehand."

In Denmark where I live, for the last couple of years we've had quite a high focus on peadophilia in daycare centers, sports communities, boy scouts, etc. Since peadophilia is such a horrible crime and so hard to prove conclusively in a court, an accusation of peadophilia is enough to ruin a persons life, even though the accused is acquitted in court. This leads to a situation where men I know refuse to do paid or charity work in these settings, for the fear of being accused of touching the children.

Behaving in a manner such that nobody believes you're capable of anything you're accused of is not necessarily as straightforward as you say.

I don't get it

Posted Dec 2, 2010 3:43 UTC (Thu) by vaurora (subscriber, #38407) [Link] (2 responses)

A conference is a private event. Generally speaking, the organizers have as much legal right to eject someone from a conference as you do to kick someone out of your house. If you are a conference organizer, it's your party, you can invite - or kick out - anyone you like.

Hm, I feel like I wrote this before. Oh, that's because I did!

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-harassment_policy...

(Search for "private event.")

I don't get it

Posted Dec 2, 2010 17:06 UTC (Thu) by sorpigal (guest, #36106) [Link] (1 responses)

Having taken time to actually read this link I am now confused. Is this the policy referenced in TFA? It seems like it would be better described as an Anti-Harassment HOWTO for conference organizers, a thing which clearly would be beneficial and not at all harmful. Describing it as a "policy" and referencing the Ubuntu code of conduct suggests that this is some kind of affidavit that each attendee would have to agree to live by, which sounds draconian and unreasonable.

I don't get it

Posted Dec 2, 2010 18:17 UTC (Thu) by maco (guest, #53641) [Link]

No, the one in TFA is: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harass...

You're right that the one she linked in the comments is just an explanation of anti-harassment policies and issues surrounding them.

I don't get it

Posted Dec 2, 2010 5:51 UTC (Thu) by stewart (subscriber, #50665) [Link]

> ejecting people opens the organisers up to lawsuits from the people being > ejected. How many people are willing to accept that sort of liability?

Just about all of them.

Those that aren't, I don't want to go to.

I don't get it

Posted Dec 7, 2010 15:16 UTC (Tue) by sez (guest, #71571) [Link] (3 responses)

Ejecting people opens $conf up to lawsuits. Where is your evidence for this claim?

Sounds like FUD to me.

Certainly for our conference our insurance policy explicitly *does not cover* claims under molestation, so if someone experiences that at our conference and we have done nothing to prevent it, we are wide open to being sued.

But as far as ejecting people goes - no problem.

False complaint?? What are you talking about?

This is not a kangaroo court, no-ones being charged with anything here. If the worst possible thing happens under this policy and the person gets ejected, too bad - so sad, they go back to work and tell their buddies whatever they want. Its a minor inconvenience.

If the conf organisers don't eject them and the offender goes on to grope and harass more people, the class action lawsuit, not covered by insurance is going to go as high as the national debt.

You want to pay for that?

I don't get it

Posted Dec 7, 2010 19:20 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

if you refund the person's air fare, hotel, and conference registration, then it can approach 'too bad, so sad' but even then it's not a non-event.

your opinion seems to be 'better to punish a hundred innocent people by throwing them out than to miss throwing out one bad person', aka a presumption of guilt.

At least in the US, this is not how things are supposed to work.

I don't get it

Posted Dec 7, 2010 20:30 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

I think you're mistaking judicial process and a private event.

I don't get it

Posted Dec 7, 2010 20:31 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Where did sez talk about throwing out hundreds of people?


Copyright © 2024, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds