[sonjat]

It's unclear if the issue is EA or how to handle misbehavior in organizations without formal structure or hierarchy. It isn't like a workplace, with reasonably well-defined boundaries, but something more akin to religion, where its influence bleeds over heavily into many aspects of ones life. As such, it is probably both more devastating when one is the victim of misconduct and also more difficult to police such misconduct. I am not really sure what the answer here is. "Believe all women" is a great slogan, but I am not a fan of a "guilty until proven innocent" (and I say this as a woman). OTOH, this isn't a criminal procedure and as such, one shouldn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is preying on others to enforce some level of punishment. It's a tough problem.

[Y_Y]

You should be able to punish people even though there's reasonable doubt that they are culpable? Are you arguing for a "balance of probabilities" standard? Or that it's worth punishing some innocents so that the guilty are also punished?

[michaelt]

The standard of proof required to ban someone from a once-a-month pub meetup is far lower than the standard required to, say, give someone the death penalty.

[sonjat]

I think I am arguing for a "balance of probabilities". If (to spout off random hypothetical) the punishment is something like a banning of someone from EA conferences, then there definitely needs to be evidence of their misconduct, but that level of evidence doesn't need to be the same as if they are looking at a criminal conviction. The point is balancing the need to protect the victim while not punishing the innocent is a difficult issue outside the criminal courtroom.