We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap reports

Except for all of the responses from people saying it doesn't sound plausible for the project in question, and for the acute lack of real evidence or even details to accompany the allegation.

Additionally, I think "last resort" is way too high a bar. It's totally reasonable for an open source project to have a zero-tolerance policy for AI-generated spam patches or bug reports, and to respond with public shaming after the first offense. Nobody should be expected to make any allowance for such egregious behavior.

A user who is genuine but simply doesn't know how to usefully communicate about their problem doesn't deserve that treatment and should simply be ignored if the devs don't have time to engage in the interrogation necessary to extract a useful bug report. But if the user decides to try to use an LLM to compensate for a lack of content in their bug report, that user would be earning a negative response by making a bad decision. (If you're going to use an LLM, ask it how to write a bug report, rather than asking it to make up a bug report for you.)

When I'm not being conscious, I tend to be pretty negative or sarcastic and even trend towards passive aggressive. I've found it to be rather damaging for a number of reasons.

I find when I choose kindness, not only is it more effective at accomplishing my goals, but I am happier and I set a better example for those around me. I find the kinder I respond ESPECIALLY in situations where it feels undeserved, the more positive impact it has.

To put it in more cliche terms, I want the world to be a kinder place, and I am trying to be the change I seek.

So yeah, personally I think it's a bad thing. Ban em, sure. But why take it any further? And FWIW, I'm sure the "threat" of ridicule is more tongue in cheek than anything, I was just trying to elaborate on what I suspected the other commenter was intimating.

Crucially, money, bitcoin, and pokemon cards are all transferrable. You can't transfer prestige to someone else, so it has no value in financial transactions.

If you allow me to go on a meandering tangent/exploration:

___

I mean if you think about it, this outcome is more or less inevitable, given the environment we've created.

The foundational building block being that people will always optimize for their own benefit and personal gain. They fundamentally have to, because no one else will. So that gives us a natural source of conflict, because not everyone is a builder (or at least not everyone believes that they would), meaning that they need to get someone else to do what they want to get done.

You as a builder of course operate no different to that. You also want to optimize for your own personal gain. Where it is different though is that you do not rely that much on external resources to do that, given that you can create by your own.

So these are our building blocks.

To have a functioning societal system, we do want and need to allow people that don't to receive a decent-ish slice of the output of those that create for various reasons.

Something something shared humanity, but also the fact that a society built out of autonomous builders quickly collapses. Plus multi-dimensionality, meaning that person A might be a builder in discipline X, but needs others to sustain themself in discipline Y. Society and all. Shared workload.

The mechanism that regulates the flow of resources between these agents is friction.

For example, social shaming for not sharing the fair part of what you're earning is friction. That is a constant eroding force and cost that is supposed to shift your internal mental calculus to make contributing to society the most sensible outcome.

Equally so, the act of being protective of your time, demanding respect, boundaries and fair compensation is friction that is supposed to shift someone else's mental calculus to make fair treatment of you the most sensible outcome.

____

Okay, many words, but what the fuck am I on about?

Here's where this self-regulating system implodes:

In the last two decades or so, we have absolutely supercharged the mechanism of shaming and public pressure (rel: Twitter).

Simultaneously though, we've also _vastly_ nerfed any forms of friction a builder might employ. (rel: GitHub as the default, being "nice and professional" as the default, etc.)

And that is what simply is not working. But we're not talking about that properly, because any platforms we currently have for talking about stuff are absolutely and utterly dominated by those that do not create; meaning that they get to dictate the rules.

In a very unsustainable way of course (see also collapse of democracy in general) but that is still the reality we find us in.

___

And that is _I think_ also where we can find solutions to these problems. Don't get me wrong, I'm not proposing to return to linus and tell people that they should be retroactively aborted for having made a mistake. There were many very important advancements we made culturally to push out toxicity.

We will need to reintroduce friction though.

Likewise, we will need re-engineer our communication spaces to shift the balance of power back to a sustainable equilibrium. Which doesn't mean "cold uncaring meritocracy" (also, what even is merit?) but it will mean not handing out ever-larger megaphones based on who is already screaming the loudest.

___

Anyway, TL;DR:

It's the system, stupid. It is like this, because it can't be any else given the currently governing rules.

Thanks for attending my Ted Talk.