I personally have had to deal with someone who, IMO, is a psychopath - he forced the rest of us out of this non-profit using manipulation, etc while the rest of the organization (i.e. everyone else) make the mistake of empathising with him (assuming his behaviour was the result of personal stress). At the end, he flat out stated his end goal was to derive a salary from the donations the general public was making to the org, contrary to the organization's constitution... He's now commercializing the heck out of things while having a personal (and unstated) financial interest in the commercialization.

I stupidly hadn't asked enough questions about the back story of how this guy got involved with the previous incarnation of the organization - he came in, stirred up trouble, drove out the existing leadership and due to their missteps, was able to portray his behaviour as reasonable... when it became apparent he was losing some level of control over the current org, he did it all over again. My fault entirely for being not cynical enough and the other people for believing in his bullshit.

I understand your point of view, but until you have been in a real world situation where the legal system is COMPLETELY USELESS, you will never really understand how the world really works (aka reach 40, not a conservative, no brain etc). The amount of ambiguity inherent in evaluating human behaviour is a lot more than you think, and people like this use it to their advantage. And the legal system is very expensive, so trying to use it to achieve 'justice' tends to be, overall, not cost effective. The legal system is ONLY about monetary issues.

And people like Appelbaum know this - they know how to skate the line and to use the weaknesses of society, social relationships, the legal system ... to their advantage. Reading about Appelbaum triggered all my triggers about people who should be avoided. I really "get" this ideal of Solomon-like impartiality, but facts / evidence / scientific-ish attitude... you have to also understand people as well besides this to grok the truth and that requires actual wisdom. And over 40, you begin to understand that an awful lot of people have zero integrity, especially those whose primary goal is power of some sort.

None of the arguments you raise point in one direction or the other. It's possible Applebaum is the psychopath you describe. It's also possible that a different psychopath has "came in, [is] stirr[ing] up trouble, drove out the existing leadership [...] due to their missteps".

The fact that psychopaths exist is not evidence of Applebaum's guilt. This torch wielding angry mob might have a legitimate grievance, or they might be a spontaneous torch wielding angry mob, they might even be stirred up by a psychopath like the one you describe.

That's why we need a process better than the torch wielding angry mob.

I wouldn't say Appelbaum is a psychopath, but I'd say he's certainly trouble. I agree torch wielding angry mobs are not a solution; so how do you prevent that, yet deal with the problem without relying on the legal system?

Perhaps the global 'social networking' phenomena / the democratization of the media / etc offers something - all in all, all the discussion around things like this is ultimately useful; it raises people's awareness.

Been there, been done like that.

I don't need the certainty of a court verdict to convince me a bozo isn't worth my time. When there's no shortage of good people to work with, anything less than a "yes" is a "no".

Conversely, I also choose my own friends. I've befriended social pariahs many times, because having played that role many times myself, I get it.

I really don't understand your point. I did pick up on the fact that you may be assuming or insinuating that I'm under 40, conservative or brainless. That's a really shitty thing of you to write regardless of whether or not you meant it that way.

So, since I have no idea what your point was, can you rephrase your post? What was your point?

No, sorry, I wasn't talking about you, if I came off like that, I worded things badly. I'm still processing what I've been through and rants on HN are the result.

I mistakingly assumed everyone has heard of the maxim attributed to Churchill. It's a bit flippant, but there is some truth to it if you look past the surface meaning. The world is fundamentally run by money and power, two things 'conservatives' are stereotypically obsessed with. When you see that 'liberals' can be driven by those two things as well, then how society really operates becomes a lot clearer.

As for my post, I was trying to say the legal system is inadequate for some things. In a small community, there are social mechanisms by which the group can deal with problematic people, if the group steps up to the task. Western society today is not a "small community" but perhaps the rise of social networking etc allows for this. The problem then becomes acting with integrity, and trying to deal with the issue evenhandedly - I am of course assuming the Tor Board did its best here. It's unfortunate those that things needed to get to the point where there was enough of a public outcry to finally address the issue - as I understand it, people have been complaining about Appelbaum for years (same as for Jian Ghomeshi in Canada). But that is how it usually works - people "knew" about Bill Cosby and Jimmy Saville for years but the issue never got addressed.

How can communities police themselves without having to rely on an external authority or hierarchy? Always relying on the legal system as the external authority is impracticable.

> How can communities police themselves without having to rely on an external authority or hierarchy?

communities can police themselves about how well their members fit in with the group and obey social norms using whatever tools they like, up to a point.

up to a point.

the point where self-policing must end and external authority must take over is when criminal allegations are made against a member of the community. if someone is accused of sexual assault, that is a crime they can face prison time for. it is deeply inappropriate for the community to try and self-police a criminal allegation of that weight.

if the accuser is not willing to let the criminal justice system investigate a criminal allegation then I think there's something else going on. using criminal allegations for social-normative or political ends is a dangerous game though.

A relevant, albeit bullshit, maxim is: "Those who aren't progressive at age 20 have no hearts, those who aren't conservative at age 40 have no brains." Perhaps certain parochial minds might assume everyone has heard that maxim, or even that everyone believes it?

It isn't really "shitty" to be under 40 or conservative.

metaphorm, I think the post wasn't about you. Generally, as a rule I have learned that it helps to assume people aren't talking about you. Mostly they are more involved in their own lives and ideas. the [grand]parent post is interesting and useful, and I'm sure not aimed in any detrimental way at you.

There are no torch-wielding mobs here. Nobody is attacking his physical person. They're excluding him from an organization.

What you are arguing is that, in the absence of a trial by a government, people have the active right to participate in an organization that doesn't want them. That goes against every bit of the ethos of a project like Tor. (And if you won't believe any other argument, keep in mind that it's not fair to him: why would the state be inclined to treat him fairly, for everything he's done to oppose the state?)

https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence

You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.

> There are no torch-wielding mobs here. Nobody is attacking his physical person. They're excluding him from an organization.

I think you may have missed what the front-page of HN looked like when this was first happening. I won't bother re-quoting/linking things beyond previous discussions (since those contain the information) but your comment is entirely out-of-sync with what was happening.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845338 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11837901

Can you be more precise about where you saw someone attack or attempt to attack his physical person?

If you're referring to the "DieJakeDie" account, I acknowledge that it existed, but it was very clear that it had no involvement with victims or (as far as anyone can tell) anyone involved in the Tor community. The integrity of the Tor process was not compromised by its existence, any more than the integrity of a government trial is compromised by protesters outside calling for blood.

I think you're having a pretty regrettable case of tunnel vision on this.