51–60 of 156 posts
This makes me sad. Do people really need to be told what not to do and say like that? To me it feels insulting that I am not trusted to be nice to others.
I'm more concerned about rules that I think might apply to me in a way I'd consider unfair than about rules that I'm already staying a safe distance from violating.
This is great: simple and easy to understand. For everyone feigning confusion about modern professional behavioral norms, just memorize this list.
This is great: simple and easy to understand. For everyone feigning confusion about modern professional behavioral norms, just memorize this list.
"Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion." It doesn't take much creativity to recognize the inherent contradiction in this systemic line of thinking.
If someone can think of another way of harassing then making "Harassing photography or recording, including logging online activity for harassment purposes" it's allowed? I doubt that's the intention. So why the oddly specific rules?
If more and more groups insist on forcing their ideological agenda down the throats of contributors and users maybe it's time to start hacking on projects that don't feel the need to bring politics into software.
I hope similar things still can take place today.
If more and more groups insist on forcing their ideological agenda down the throats of contributors and users maybe it's time to start hacking on projects that don't feel the need to bring politics into software.
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=32582... Never forget
The following is from the very top of a random file in the removed set I clicked: A bad little girl in Madrid, A most reprehensible kid, Told her Tante Louise That her cunt smelled like cheese, And the worst of it was that it did! Wat!? Good riddance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly. But the benefits outweigh the marginal scenario you are envisioning. I again return to the example of HN, which has higher standards of conversation than many other boards, due in part to strong moderating guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html To draw a parallel, do you think HN would be more successful if it relied on "intuition" for norms of discussion?
The benefits of that kind of CoC remain to be proven. Meanwhile, I note that HN's moderating guidelines do not mention sex, gender, religion, food choices, or most of what FreeBSD's new CoC describes. HN's moderating guidelines are about content whereas FreeBSD's new Code of Conduct codifies human behaviour, as the name would imply. They are different things.
You might also note that HN regularly fills up with pages upon pages of sexist (more rarely, racist) tripe. Which might be ok for HN but the people who participate in the FreeBSD project have decided it's not ok for their thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that reasoning, we should never have rules, because any rule will create the possibility of people trying to lawyer out of the rules.
Doesn't sound bad. Most communities survived 20+ years, and even thrived, without any such rules.