That's one way to interpret that, but not the only way. You shouldn't complain about someone potentially rushing to judgment at the same time you're rushing to judgment.
Oh, I see. You're interested in having an argument about the semantics of a straight forward sentence.
>"the conference organizers should not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference."
Not much to "interpret" there. I've been wrong before, but I'll bet he meant exactly what he said; this individual should have been removed from the conference immediately. That's all well and good for a discussion on an internet message board, but in reality it could be extremely harmful to reputations, both of the accused and the conference.
Now, if jnoller meant what you are implying he meant, he could have easily written:
the conference organizers should not have blinked before [taking action/investigating/speaking with/questioning etc] the [accused] party.
or even:
the conference organizers should have investigated, then not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference if determined to be guilty.
And that's something I could support. I think the conference representative's reaction to such a major accusation was reprehensible. But that isn't what he wrote. And I really don't think that's what he meant, either. Note the language. Responsible? At what point was that determined?
And by the way: jumping to conclusions about a sexual harassment charge is dangerous, and not at all analogous to doing the same with regards to a sentence on HackerNews.
Even though it's against my better judgement to keep this thread going, I'll hopefully clarify something for people reading this later.
In short; you're right - I could have spent more time wording it differently, and your second proposed text:
> "the conference organizers should have investigated, then not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference if determined to be guilty."
Is closest to my thoughts on this. However, I feel the second half of that - "determined to be guilty" puts a flair on the statement that ignores the knowledge expressed in the article from the conference organizer - namely they expressed to the author prior knowledge that this individual might be a known issue and therefore, the second portion of your sentence puts an undue burden of doubt on the author's claims.
For the sake of clarity; here's the exact steps I would have taken as a conference chair for a conference sitting at around 2500 attendees:
1> Once approached, I would have immediately noted the code of conduct outlining our policy and thoughts on issues such as this, and explained that we would immediately look into the situation, as the accusations are indeed serious, and taken seriously.
2> I would take copious notes and asked the author to confirm my summary of the events. If they were serious enough, I would then ask if the author wished for me to summon law enforcement.
3> If a No was indicated to #2 - I would ask for any witnesses and immediately pull the accused party aside, without the attendance of the accuser, with at least one other senior staff member to ask the accuser about the events, and once again point out the stated code of conduct and ask for their side of events. During the investigation portion of this, the accused would not be allowed to speak or represent the conference in any way, to allow that would further open the door to further risk or an implicit endorsement of the actions under investigation.
4> If, upon discussing with senior staff, and any witnesses we felt that the issue being faced violated with our outlined code of conduct and indeed created a hostile environment, I would ask the accused to leave the conference per the stated code of conduct.
"Without blinking" was indeed meant to "take action" without blinking - whether that is to immediately pull all parties aside to investigate and discuss, or eject the accused.
However with the evidence provided in the post - most notably the fact that the conference organizer(s) seemingly knew that this individual posed a problem prior to the events occurring, I would have a responsibility to immediately act and isolate the accused to discuss, and in all probability ask them to leave.
A "zero tolerance policy" has a bad name in the news due to the concerns you outline. It does not, however, have to be enacted in the way we are all familiar with - namely skipping the investigation and discussion portion.
I wouldn't want my child or myself ejected from school stupidly from school or an event due to some written zero tolerance policy without discussion and proper investigation - I would not do that to anyone else.
>"the conference organizers should not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference."
Shoot first, ask questions later?
This is a problem, and not a world I want my wife or children to be part of, that simple.