Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct
| From: | Chase Peeler | Date: | Thu, 07 Jan 2016 20:39:09 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-90317@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 8, 2016 3:34 AM, "Chase Peeler" <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 8, 2016 3:14 AM, "Chase Peeler" <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > And none of those caveats exist in the definition you provided.
> >>
> >> Hmmm. Which one did you read?
> >>
> >> "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions
> of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may
> vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force
> someone to ..."
> >>
> >> If I asked him to stop and he continues, aggressively, then it matches
> the "unwanted", "annoying" and "to force".
> >>
> >> > That is a prime example of one of the main concerns we all have - the
> ability for anyone to reshape definitions as they please. Even if you
> assume they will do so in a way they believe is in everyone's best
> interest, we all know that won't always happen
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Chase Peeler
> >> > chasepeeler@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > Where is the requirement in the definition that you have to ask him to
> stop? I don't see the word "aggressive" in there either. As far as the "to
> force" part, that's part of the phrase preceded by "The purposes may vary,
> including..." which means that it is not a requirement to meet the
> definition.
> >
> > Again, you might call this nitpicking, but I'm trying to show how a
> simple definition for a term that we all think we know the meaning of can
> be twisted and reinterpreted. All it takes is one person in a position of
> power to abuse that.
>
> Let make it crystal clear:
>
> "Stop message me privately, no matter the channel"
>
> The person continues. It starts here. Got it?
>
Got it. As long as I annoy you and continue my unwanted behavior publicly,
that's OK and not harassment. Definitely crystal clear.
--
Chase Peeler
chasepeeler@gmail.com