On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 2, 2018, at 6:41 PM, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:We have an ombudsteam precisely because we really don't want harassment to reach the level of civil suits before being addressed.I’ve already agreed it’s useful to address commercial photography. For everything else, we already have an anti-harassment policy.Providing further details are not, IMO, useful or productive. The people who most need to read it either won’t or already know what they’re doing is harassment.
Much like the point about legal process, I think you're wide of the mark here. The point of a policy like this is not to make a hard tool you can beat someone with, it's to establish the community's norms to guide people in the right direction. Being able to say "hey, that person said that they didn't want to be photographed, and our policy around here is to respect that" is a lot more effective than jumping straight to anti-harrassment proceedings.
In other words, this policy is about making clear what the right thing is: Making people's preferences clear, and making clear what it means to respect those preferences.
Let's empower people to do the right thing.
Besides, if the issue were really about creating a conducive environment, it would be more useful to start with “don’t knock people over to get a cookie at the break”.
I'm not sure if you're being facetious here, but if there is such an issue, by all means, let's address that too. It's not an either/or.
--Richard
