Purely guessing here, you might want to avoid tweeting "Stupid fucking white man" at conference organisers. https://twitter.com/0ndras/status/960901913624576001 -- but this is just a guess. I have no idea if that's why they blocked you.
What he writes in the tweets above really comes across as white supremacy-ish and a bit racist - basically blaming the conference organizers that not being accepted is because he is white, or more specifically, is not "racially diverse enough", which imho is just another form of racism... I wound't find the bottom "Stupid fucking white man" tweet (i.e. quote from a great movie) as offending as what he is implying in the tweets above.
Did that second tweet get removed? Can’t see the swearing.
Agreed with the language. It’s a constant stream of fussy complaints, and as unfair as it sounds, I would have probably blocked them too after years of the same.
After reading the "code of conduct" on their homepage I would assume that you have unknowligly broken something like
> "Using gendered terms like “dude” or “guys” to address a mixed-gendered group of people contributes to furthering exclusion of underrepresented individuals."
The fact that they included an option to "make an anonymous" report furthers the assumption that you just got under the political wheels of the conference.
I'm fairly certain I saw "guys" used to address even women-only groups in American movies and TV.
Conference that wants to be internationally inclusive, which I assume a conference in English held in Germany wants to be, should not ostracize people based on grammar technicalities.
That's just one word, but pronouns in particular differ greatly across languages. Objects can have genders, occupations can have genders, plurals can differ or be the same, etc.. Someone who is not a native speaker can easily make a mistake that is related to gender.
It's always the intent that should be taken into account, not whether someone was offended.
Your quote is disingenious since it cuts the following, quite crucial sentence. The full paragraph reads:
Sexism
Using gendered terms like “dude” or “guys” to address a
mixed-gendered group of people contributes to furthering
exclusion of underrepresented individuals. We strongly
advise avoiding gendered pronouns as well as gendered
terms.
The whole short paragraph is listed in the "please pay a little attention to this" section of the CoC under the following introduction:
Inclusive language
In our commitment to a harassment-free and inclusive
environment we strongly believe it’s important to pay
attention to harmful language patterns.
It's a fair assessment. It's certainly not obvious to foreign speakers - it certainly wasn't for me - but isn't it fair to ask people to think about the words they're using? To point out common speech patterns that may make other people unwelcome and ask them to avoid them? Why not use "folks" or "people" instead of "dudes" and "guys" to refer to groups of people of all genders? Would you as a presumably male person feel included if someone refers to your group as "girls" or "ladies"? Would you prefer if people used that in their talks?
Now, that this pattern has been pointed out to you, you can still feign ignorance and deliberately still use "guys" and "dudes" to refer to people that do not identify as guys and dudes but that would just make me refer to you as "boneheaded impolite dick" even though you might not identify as such.
I have not experience with running any popular twitter handles, but I can imagine that they block lots of people for various reasons, ranging from trivial to non-trivial. Honestly, if I were you, I'd simply let it go and not care if you can.
Also, from the information you have given, from a certain point of view, you might come off a bit needy: You send in 5-6 proposals per year and send direct messages and mails to multiple people when you don't receive answers and you care about whether some twitter account is blocking you or not.
I am not saying you are needy, I am just saying it could come off that way and that might have lead to either being blocked or communicated in non-tactful ways.
The existence of the blog itself makes me think the truth wouldn't be as clear as it is presented. Was every rejected talk proposal accompanied by emails and tweets asking for explanation? One can be polite and annoying at the same time.
(that being said, their email reply was still unprofessional)
Sounds like a conference run by incompetent people, which is usually the vibe I get from glorified "javascript users".
Definitely not a conference I'd ever attend.
A conference for technology is usually supposed to be a social gathering for people with a shared interest, not a formal conference like a business gathering.
The only thing I can't think of is that you submitted a lot of proposals and they perhaps thought it was spam, but the response they gave you they clearly knew it wasn't spam.
Perhaps they have small children's mentality and didn't like the challenge of someone with a different point of view and perhaps better knowledge; although that alone would be kind of ironic since most people go to such conferences to hear the minds of bright people.
From the information you've given, I'm unable to find a logical reason for your ban.
I've been blocked by a related account for years, the only altercation I ever had with them was when their founder was drunk one night (their admission) and went nuts at me for not linking the conference enough in my newsletter :-D Social stuff is hard, running events is hard, and people get stressed - it is what it is.
Given the people they gave speaker slots to this year I don't think you are missing a lot. This conference has become blatantly political, vs focusing on tech, the later of which I'm assuming is why are you wanting to attend.
This is rather surprising coming from JSConf.eu, which is widely respected and run by people who really care about their community. I'd like to hear their side before making any judgement.
You either follow an account that has been banned, or the accounts you follow themselves follow accounts that have been banned. In the other direction, an account that follows you has been banned or they follow accounts that have been banned. @jsconfeu probably use some of the popular lists.
So if I have a banned account I can cause arbitrary people to be banned simply by following them? It doesn't seem like a good idea to give me that power.
I was wondering if it was accidental, but then the author did reach out to a few different sources and didn't receive an answer... which could still be coincidence, but makes it seem less likely.
> dealing with this is at the bottom of our rather indefinitely long priority list. Don’t expect a swift resolution.
> We’d appreciate not being bugged about this again.
It seems they did it on purpose and they refuse to at least clarify why. My bet is that they did it for some childish reason and they don't have a courage to admit the mistake.
I hope they will now shed some light on what happened.
Yeah you'd think that after Ondřej reached out to the organisers they'd:
a) give him the benefit of the doubt and say "Not sure what happened, sorry we've unblocked you" (most likely thing)
b) tell him whatever heinous deed he is supposed to have done
IME blocks are either accidental or for some really annoying or inappropriate behaviour. I mean it's "just" a block on twitter, but it's pretty weird for a conference to engage with the community like this.
Why do you keep bugging someone when they obviously do not want you to contact them?
Blocking you is a way of saying "Leave me alone!"
Not replying to direct messages or emails is a way of saying "Leave me alone!"
Nobody needs to explain why they want to be left alone.
Maybe stop thinking about yourself, and just accept that the people behind the twitter handles just don't want you to contact them anymore for whatever reason.
What you say is true if it was a private person. This is about a conference that seems to be important professionally to that person.
They even replied to him - why not just say WHY and get it over with once and for all? This is just stupid, not (just) unprofessional. If they could at least point to "we already told you, now get lost" - but never giving a reason... it's not like they could be sued (first, Europe, second, just a Twitter block), so the usual (at least understandable) justifications e.g. when not giving reasons when not hiring someone don't apply.
Not to argue if ghosting is a morally appropriate way of communication in one's personal life, but it was not about someone's personal account, rather of one of a professional conference. It is definitely not how one should do their business communications.
I think this is not a private or personal thing, this just unprofessional handling of an yet unclear situation.
Like beeing conficted without a trial (of course this is just a business relationship between him and the conference).
Imagine that Hacker News would ban your account jakobegger, no explanation, no way to get informations why or what you did wrong. Would you just accept this as just "leave me alone"?
Thats an assumption it could have been a mistake, it could have been temporary, it could have been any number of reasons. Maybe there is a good reason they blocked you, if you knew this reason maybe you could fix it or accept your differences and move on, both good social outcomes for both parties.
You are being anti-social by assuming other people actions. You also assume that the other persons action was also anti-social.
You then assume that doing the social thing and talking to the person in a reasonable manor will be treated as unreasonable and anti-social (this makes sense if you think they are anti-social).
So you don't ask, their anti-social behaviour is never questioned and they carry on with it. They probably blocked you for a reason, you were being anti-social but since you never questioned that reason you too will carry on with it.
Look, this is a Javascript conference, and these now are just super about getting only candidates who are "Javascript famous" or have a lot of twitter followers. I wouldn't waste your time, either applying or attending. If being on the conference circut is what you want and in javascript then you've got two choices.
1. Create a Open Source library that is suuuuuuuper popular.
2. Get a shitload of Twitter followers.
Conferences are a business, that business is selling tickets.. big names sell tickets. It's like if I have a music festival, and I open up applications to everyone. I'm only doing that on paper, realistically I'm only getting the biggest musicians.. cause that sells tickets.
If conferences are your dream... Chose a different language, because JS is toxic and the ONLY voices you will hear now are those that have already become "Javascript Famous".
DefCon and HOPE usually have an assortment of real solid talks, a few 0-days, and new maker products to mess around with or buy. Plus there are plenty of people who actually know their shit. I don't think you'll get the same kind of entertainment from a bunch of coders who solely do JS. But yeah, something about mass audience, technology, and a detached culture makes these conferences more watery every next decade. Still worth it at least for now but I acknowledge your point.
This is the same when people message a youtuber and expect some reply - they can't see the hundreds and thousands of messages people get and still need to produce youtube content (or organize a conference) - "I can deal with the mails I get, why can't they?"
But this isn't some random person like it is with someone messaging a youtuber. This is someone they have a previous relationship with, receiving and rejecting proposals, and who they took a specific action against, to block on twitter.
Slightly off topic: I've always found twitter-style blocking totally nonsensical. I mean: you've got a public account. Blocking should prevent people from replying or tweeting at you, and from sending you DMs, maybe even retweeting what you said (even though I'm not sure about the usefulness of this last thing)... but why should ANYONE be prevented at just READING PUBLIC CONTENT when LOGGED IN?
(I think the same applies for Facebook and yes, I think that's nonsensical as well)
Twitter realises it is stupid. However many of their technologically illiterate users don't and when they tried to change it there was an outcry that Twitter was helping abuse or something silly like that. Keeping the feature is as is easier than educating their users how computers work.
I've also wondered about this, and the only conclusion I could come to is quite cynical. Think about the practical effects. It encourages people to create multiple accounts and also encourages warring of various sorts. These behaviors send Twitter's usage and user numbers up without bots while enabling complete plausible deniability about any complicity. It's a problem with ad-driven networks. Their goal is to increase user numbers which enables them to inflate their advertised reach and thus increase their overall revenue.
One might joke about Facebook bragging about its reach: "We have more than 2 billion users and only 25% are located in the USA!" Subtlety, math, and statistical references all in one one-liner joke - what could be better?
At some point you offended the wrong person, they added you to one of those shared blocklists, and that's all, you're banned forever.
Who's to blame? I'd say you, for caring. This is the way politics works now, and some software projects have, for some reason, joined the politics battle. By caring you're giving them weight. Just flip them off, tell them to go fuck themselves, and keep thinking the way you do.
It's not worth it to give up on your views on politics just to not be ostracised by these manchilds and circus freaks. They live off attention; if you don't pay attention to them they die. Don't give them any legitimacy, because most of those who take these decisions don't even know how to code and they are there to hijack the projects with their politics.
[+] [-] DanBC|7 years ago|reply
There isn't anything obvious here - a bit of complaining but it all seems mild and accurate: https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=%40jsconfeu%20from%3A0ndras&...
Purely guessing here, you might want to avoid tweeting "Stupid fucking white man" at conference organisers. https://twitter.com/0ndras/status/960901913624576001 -- but this is just a guess. I have no idea if that's why they blocked you.
[+] [-] newcrobuzon|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ricardobeat|7 years ago|reply
Agreed with the language. It’s a constant stream of fussy complaints, and as unfair as it sounds, I would have probably blocked them too after years of the same.
[+] [-] amingilani|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] saintPirelli|7 years ago|reply
> "Using gendered terms like “dude” or “guys” to address a mixed-gendered group of people contributes to furthering exclusion of underrepresented individuals."
The fact that they included an option to "make an anonymous" report furthers the assumption that you just got under the political wheels of the conference.
[+] [-] rplnt|7 years ago|reply
Conference that wants to be internationally inclusive, which I assume a conference in English held in Germany wants to be, should not ostracize people based on grammar technicalities.
That's just one word, but pronouns in particular differ greatly across languages. Objects can have genders, occupations can have genders, plurals can differ or be the same, etc.. Someone who is not a native speaker can easily make a mistake that is related to gender.
It's always the intent that should be taken into account, not whether someone was offended.
[+] [-] Xylakant|7 years ago|reply
Now, that this pattern has been pointed out to you, you can still feign ignorance and deliberately still use "guys" and "dudes" to refer to people that do not identify as guys and dudes but that would just make me refer to you as "boneheaded impolite dick" even though you might not identify as such.
[+] [-] aembleton|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mosselman|7 years ago|reply
Also, from the information you have given, from a certain point of view, you might come off a bit needy: You send in 5-6 proposals per year and send direct messages and mails to multiple people when you don't receive answers and you care about whether some twitter account is blocking you or not.
I am not saying you are needy, I am just saying it could come off that way and that might have lead to either being blocked or communicated in non-tactful ways.
[+] [-] philjackson|7 years ago|reply
Jesus, if you think that comes off as needy, you should see what founders often have to do to get going.
[+] [-] rplnt|7 years ago|reply
(that being said, their email reply was still unprofessional)
[+] [-] bausshf|7 years ago|reply
Definitely not a conference I'd ever attend.
A conference for technology is usually supposed to be a social gathering for people with a shared interest, not a formal conference like a business gathering.
The only thing I can't think of is that you submitted a lot of proposals and they perhaps thought it was spam, but the response they gave you they clearly knew it wasn't spam.
Perhaps they have small children's mentality and didn't like the challenge of someone with a different point of view and perhaps better knowledge; although that alone would be kind of ironic since most people go to such conferences to hear the minds of bright people.
From the information you've given, I'm unable to find a logical reason for your ban.
[+] [-] petercooper|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelmrose|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lgleason|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sylvinus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] palerno|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Buge|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gsich|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spraak|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] methyl|7 years ago|reply
He actually did:
> Hi Ondrej,
> dealing with this is at the bottom of our rather indefinitely long priority list. Don’t expect a swift resolution.
> We’d appreciate not being bugged about this again.
It seems they did it on purpose and they refuse to at least clarify why. My bet is that they did it for some childish reason and they don't have a courage to admit the mistake.
I hope they will now shed some light on what happened.
[+] [-] smcl|7 years ago|reply
a) give him the benefit of the doubt and say "Not sure what happened, sorry we've unblocked you" (most likely thing)
b) tell him whatever heinous deed he is supposed to have done
IME blocks are either accidental or for some really annoying or inappropriate behaviour. I mean it's "just" a block on twitter, but it's pretty weird for a conference to engage with the community like this.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DoubleGlazing|7 years ago|reply
But seeing as this is in the EU, the author could use the GDPR to find out why he was banned.
[+] [-] jesperht|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt4077|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicky0|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakobegger|7 years ago|reply
Blocking you is a way of saying "Leave me alone!"
Not replying to direct messages or emails is a way of saying "Leave me alone!"
Nobody needs to explain why they want to be left alone.
Maybe stop thinking about yourself, and just accept that the people behind the twitter handles just don't want you to contact them anymore for whatever reason.
[+] [-] ItsMe000001|7 years ago|reply
They even replied to him - why not just say WHY and get it over with once and for all? This is just stupid, not (just) unprofessional. If they could at least point to "we already told you, now get lost" - but never giving a reason... it's not like they could be sued (first, Europe, second, just a Twitter block), so the usual (at least understandable) justifications e.g. when not giving reasons when not hiring someone don't apply.
[+] [-] oytis|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BonoboIO|7 years ago|reply
Like beeing conficted without a trial (of course this is just a business relationship between him and the conference).
Imagine that Hacker News would ban your account jakobegger, no explanation, no way to get informations why or what you did wrong. Would you just accept this as just "leave me alone"?
[+] [-] dangerface|7 years ago|reply
Thats an assumption it could have been a mistake, it could have been temporary, it could have been any number of reasons. Maybe there is a good reason they blocked you, if you knew this reason maybe you could fix it or accept your differences and move on, both good social outcomes for both parties.
You are being anti-social by assuming other people actions. You also assume that the other persons action was also anti-social. You then assume that doing the social thing and talking to the person in a reasonable manor will be treated as unreasonable and anti-social (this makes sense if you think they are anti-social). So you don't ask, their anti-social behaviour is never questioned and they carry on with it. They probably blocked you for a reason, you were being anti-social but since you never questioned that reason you too will carry on with it.
This anti-social behaviour encourages itself.
[+] [-] michaelmrose|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] intothemild|7 years ago|reply
1. Create a Open Source library that is suuuuuuuper popular.
2. Get a shitload of Twitter followers.
Conferences are a business, that business is selling tickets.. big names sell tickets. It's like if I have a music festival, and I open up applications to everyone. I'm only doing that on paper, realistically I'm only getting the biggest musicians.. cause that sells tickets.
If conferences are your dream... Chose a different language, because JS is toxic and the ONLY voices you will hear now are those that have already become "Javascript Famous".
[+] [-] adamrezich|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mlang23|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sparkling|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goldenkey|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carlossless|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _Codemonkeyism|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Buge|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alanfranzoni|7 years ago|reply
(I think the same applies for Facebook and yes, I think that's nonsensical as well)
[+] [-] bodas|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zem|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] TangoTrotFox|7 years ago|reply
One might joke about Facebook bragging about its reach: "We have more than 2 billion users and only 25% are located in the USA!" Subtlety, math, and statistical references all in one one-liner joke - what could be better?
[+] [-] hbaav6|7 years ago|reply
Who's to blame? I'd say you, for caring. This is the way politics works now, and some software projects have, for some reason, joined the politics battle. By caring you're giving them weight. Just flip them off, tell them to go fuck themselves, and keep thinking the way you do.
It's not worth it to give up on your views on politics just to not be ostracised by these manchilds and circus freaks. They live off attention; if you don't pay attention to them they die. Don't give them any legitimacy, because most of those who take these decisions don't even know how to code and they are there to hijack the projects with their politics.