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

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2016 2:58 AM, "Chase Peeler" <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > > > > > " the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a > group, including threats and demands." > > > > Nothing in the definition beyond that is exclusionary. It includes > various examples, but does not limit it beyond that. To me, "unwanted or > annoying actions" probably describes how a lot of people feel about Paul's > comments (I'm not one of them). Does that make him > > To me absolutely not. It is a hot debate, at best. > > Now, as an example, if he would start to message privately, aggressively, > and would continue to do so after I asked him to stop, then yes, at some > point I will consider it as such. > And none of those caveats exist in the definition you provided. 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