Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 8, 2016 2:44 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:39, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2016 2:27 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:25, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2016 2:21 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:15, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 8, 2016 1:58 AM, "Paul M. Jones" > > > > > >> <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I notice you did not answer my question. I'll ask again: when you say "proven guilty" what exactly do you mean? > > > > > > > > > > > > I see you are going to nitpick here. So let clarify it. > > > > > > > > > > When we're talking about banning people as a result of their actions, we'd better be clear on the details, don't you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is a clear set of evidences that someone harassed, insulted, attacked another person then it fits this definition. > > > > > > > > > > What to you would be "a clear set of evidences"? (If you have examples of actual occurrences, that would be better than building hypotheticals, and probably easier.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind than harassment, attacks or insults have nothing to do with opinions. > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, too many people confuse "argument" with "harassment", and "disagreement" with "attacks", and "observations" as "insults." So I'd like to hear first what "clear evidence" means to you. > > > > > > > > This is what I mean by nitpicking. I am sure you perfectly understand my point as well as what I would consider as bad. Just in case, an opiniated hot discussion is not. I would appreciate a clear answer as well from your side and little less nitpicking. > > > > > > To give clear answers, I need clear statements. For example, if a person *claims* harassment, what to you would be *evidence* of that harassment? This is not nitpicking; this is defining the terms of the conversation. If you are unable to clarify, that's cool, just say so. > > > > I think you are playing. > > I have never been more serious. This RFC, if passed, is going to have wide-ranging consequences, and if the terms in it are so vague as to give open-ended powers to those charged with enforcing it, I think that's a dangerous thing. > > So again: What to you would be "a clear set of evidences"? (If you have examples of actual occurrences, that would be better than building hypotheticals, and probably easier.) > > And again, if you are unable to clarify this, I'm OK with that. I get that it's messy. It is not. To me to distinguish harassment vs hot discussions (public or private) is part of common sense and I trust us to have this common sense when this group will be created. Also the very definition of harassment is pretty clear. Read http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment for the reference. If it is not clear for you then yes, I cannot make it clearer. Sorry. I do not think we need to build up our own definition because some thinks we will abuse powers.