Re: perspective of discussion about I-D.farresnickel-harassment

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

I'll probably regret this but...

On 23/03/2015 10:56, Dan Harkins wrote:

> http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegations.pdf

So, cutting to the chase, this single (therefore probably not statistically
reliable) study concludes that
"These results, taken in the context of an examination of
previous research, indicate that the prevalence of false allegations
is between 2% and 10%."

Well, let's assume pessimistically that among 100 allegations that
Area Directors have told an IETF participant that they are stupid and
annoying, 90 allegations are true and 10 are false.

What, exactly, would you change in the draft to deal with this?
What in the draft prevents the Ombudsteam from reaching the conclusion
that an allegation was false?

> http://sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf

>From a statistical point of view, that paper is meaningless. As the authors
say "The extraordinary range of these estimates makes a researcher suspect
that inordinate biases are at work."

In any case, a false accusation might itself be considered to be harassment.
What in the draft prevents a false accuser being the Respondent and the accused
being the Subject?

That being so, I don't see your point as relevant to the draft. We should
move on, as Alia said.

   Brian