Most people demand CoC when they have not talent and want to be respected per status.
CoC is a proof of failure in leadership, respect is earned.
Nanomsg: Stepping Down
21–30 of 69 posts
Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down
#22I disagree with him both about the usefulness and harm of CoCs. There are jackasses, and not having preemptively adopted a CoC, they can leverage the lack of clear rules to divide the community. On the other-hand, once you have rules, there are some people who for some reason or another go out of their way to argue that a behavior violates/does not violate the rules and completely ignore whether the behavior was beni…
> once you have rules, there are some people who for some reason or another go out of their way to argue that a behavior violates/does not violate the rules and completely ignore whether the behavior was benign or malignant
Maybe projects can adopt CoCs that address that too, and cover both sides of the coin.
Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down
#23I don't understand. The people who are -1, what do they care if it is adopted? Is CoC that controversial? Are personal attacks, doxing, trolling and slurs part of their daily routine they will be seriously inconvenienced by inability to use them? --- * The use of sexualized language or imagery * Personal attacks * Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments * Public or private harassment * Publishing other's private in…
Its philosophical. Note how you discuss if the CoC is controversial, not the maintainer wanting to enforce it, or how you phrase it as "there is a CoC" rather than "the maintainer will apply force as necessary".
Folks with agency or autonomy will personally act to eliminate harassment, without need for rules, for example. Troll on my turf, I will ban you. Not some set of rules taking action, a human (that being me) will exert authority (that being the mighty banhammer) and that's how it will be. There are no abstract rules or rule lawyering involved.
The CoC view is passively sugar coating some abstract set of rules which will enforce itself, kinda. Its very weird because the person applying the CoC is too passive and has too little agency to, say, wield the banhammer and eliminate the threat without need of formal rules and regulations. Yet, has enough agency to force everyone else to work under a CoC, which simultaneously implies the same people that can't autonomously be trusted to exhibit common sense will none the less be forced by the rules to apply the rules they were too timid to apply by themselves without the CoC. Its very weird logic twisting.
If you trust individual leaders, the CoC is useless because the have the agency to wield the banhammer with no need for rules. If you don't trust the leaders, the CoC is useless because they won't enforce it.
So what is the use of a CoC? Well, for one thing instead of banhammer swinging we can raise awareness and have a debating party about what violates the abstract rules. No one can be kicked out without a long painful debate. Its a rule's lawyer's paradise rather than a developers paradise.
CoC's are very passive, someone else will enforce the rules. That paradoxically leads to worse behavior. Pretending you're not in a benign despotism merely confuses and slows down necessary responses by all concerned.
Its sort of a generic opposition to all that is Dilbertian, along the lines of not requiring casual IRC / SMS message conversations to be conducted as per "Robert's Rules of Order" Its not that the rules are in themselves bad, its that if you think you need Roberts Rules of Order for IRC something is hopelessly off the tracks and you can only hope you don't show up as a satire in a Dilbert or xkcd cartoon.
Maybe a bad bar analogy is the bartender tosses out obnoxious drunks. Installing a set of formal rules that drunkards must be formally recognized by the chair of the meeting before speaking as per Roberts Rules and if you don't then an abstract someone should toss you out implies you're probably in one messed up bar.
Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down
#24I don't understand. The people who are -1, what do they care if it is adopted? Is CoC that controversial? Are personal attacks, doxing, trolling and slurs part of their daily routine they will be seriously inconvenienced by inability to use them? --- * The use of sexualized language or imagery * Personal attacks * Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments * Public or private harassment * Publishing other's private in…
A CoC lets people stretch something to fall under it to get someone else punished if enforced properly and by the letter.
If it isn't enforced by the letter - why does any of this bullshit need to be mentioned? If someone's being a dick, they'll be addressed and dealt with for being a dick. No CoC needed.
What is the difference between the following two statements?
"We've received a complaint that could be construed as violating Section 3 Subsection B of the CoC. So I'm going to have to ask you to quit it or leave."
"You're being an ass. Quit it or leave."
Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to agree with you. I do think that the common sense "don't be a dick" shouldn't need to be explicitly expressed as a rule we all follow. But it should also be common sense not to put your hands near a spinning metal blade, but we have those warnings on lawnmowers. I think where a CoC provides it value is defining the procedures for when the CoC is violated, which it no doubt will be.
> we have those warnings on lawnmowers because of lawsuit-happy culture, not due to lack of common sense. Rachel Nabor's article is interesting, but not sure how a CoC fixes dealing with a boorish weirdo outside the conference.
Do you imply that maiming should be a common occurrence or that warnings prevent no injuries?
Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down
#26CoCs are worthless. If a community is not able to detect poisonous behaviour by itself, a .txt file won't help.
They are not worthless. They are a form of social signalling showing who's trendy, who thought of it first, a form of personal aggrandizement. The fundamental outlook behind them is the idea the general public is inherently inferior, savage, and without rules it would be a world eternally red in tooth and claw, and only I am a superior enough leader, better than all the rest of you, to set the moral and ethical standards of our culture, now everyone get in line behind my moral authority, and appreciate my public declaration of my own superiority. They're obnoxious, unnecessary, and counterproductive, but not worthless.
Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down
#27I don't understand. The people who are -1, what do they care if it is adopted? Is CoC that controversial? Are personal attacks, doxing, trolling and slurs part of their daily routine they will be seriously inconvenienced by inability to use them? --- * The use of sexualized language or imagery * Personal attacks * Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments * Public or private harassment * Publishing other's private in…
I have been partly and admin of a urban terror server for years with my team.
This game has always been a troll magnet of milfan boys with too much testosterone. I was one of them, except I had a girl's name.
By kick/banning appropriately with clear reasons we (as a team), we made even women and teens feel welcome (shit happens). I kicked/banned consistently people for personal reasons (I don't like discriminating people). I also kicked/banned other people because they were not enjoyable. So were the others doing. We never asked permission to have a server we would enjoy ourselves playing, we were paying for it. And it was bringing people. And it was fun for everybody, even women and kids.
CoC is just an excuse for failure and lacking balls and that thinking just being "the owner of a digital place" makes you a leader.
Money, title, even skills don't make you a leader. Just succeeding in leading.
Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down
#28I don't understand. The people who are -1, what do they care if it is adopted? Is CoC that controversial? Are personal attacks, doxing, trolling and slurs part of their daily routine they will be seriously inconvenienced by inability to use them? --- * The use of sexualized language or imagery * Personal attacks * Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments * Public or private harassment * Publishing other's private in…
A CoC lets people stretch something to fall under it to get someone else punished if enforced properly and by the letter. If it isn't enforced by the letter - why does any of this bullshit need to be mentioned? If someone's being a dick, they'll be addressed and dealt with for being a dick. No CoC needed. What is the difference between the following two statements? "We've received a complaint that could be construed…
> What is the difference between the following two statements?
Nothing, I like the second. And the second one will be used anyway. But I was talking here more about the people who gave it a -1. Maintainer spent his personal time and put some work into creating a guide. So let the guide be.
If it is not enforced, it is not enforced. It will just stay there. If it is enforced I might help people kick abusers off a mailing list or IRC channel.
Perhaps I would understand if it was a question of well we don't have a guide, how wants to come up with one, or let's go write one. Then perhaps discussion its value vs time it takes to get it edited and committed might be in order. But if it is already done, just adopt it. There is nothing onerous or crazy in there.
If it doesn't work or causes terrible problem down the road -- throw it away.
Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down
#29I don't understand. The people who are -1, what do they care if it is adopted? Is CoC that controversial? Are personal attacks, doxing, trolling and slurs part of their daily routine they will be seriously inconvenienced by inability to use them? --- * The use of sexualized language or imagery * Personal attacks * Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments * Public or private harassment * Publishing other's private in…
It's purely a signaling issue, the text of the CoC is completely irrelevant.
Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down
#30I don't understand. The people who are -1, what do they care if it is adopted? Is CoC that controversial? Are personal attacks, doxing, trolling and slurs part of their daily routine they will be seriously inconvenienced by inability to use them? --- * The use of sexualized language or imagery * Personal attacks * Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments * Public or private harassment * Publishing other's private in…
Its philosophical. Note how you discuss if the CoC is controversial, not the maintainer wanting to enforce it, or how you phrase it as "there is a CoC" rather than "the maintainer will apply force as necessary". Folks with agency or autonomy will personally act to eliminate harassment, without need for rules, for example. Troll on my turf, I will ban you. Not some set of rules taking action, a human (that being me) w…
> So what is the use of a CoC?
In this case the use is that the maintainer took the time to create it. You can argue that it is useless. Even the maintainer seem to largely agree. So why not have it? It is already there. Why show negativity.
A CoC is a bit like a trademark. To be useful it has to be enforced. So it can just sit there, and if nobody bothers to look at, it will just occupy some extra bytes on some server (Github).
> That paradoxically leads to worse behavior.
Yeah, it might be right. But it is a hypothetical. Let's think of a positive hypothetical upside -- for example the first thing comes to mind is it sends a message to minorities, women, those who are shy, beginners that this project is approachable. We are attempting to be sensitive and welcoming by at least spending time to create a CoC. It is a general message perhaps as well "We are aware these kind bad things happen in the programming community so we did something about". That's it.