On Jan 9, 2016 1:25 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > > This is exactly what slightly annoys me to be honest. It exactly why > > we need a private group to deal with such events, even rare, or even > > if they will never ever happen again. > > > > Despite numerous people saying that it happens, including me. You > > still say, heh, that's some vague allegations and it happens in > > private anyway. Don't you see what is wrong in your statement? Don't > > you see that this is the wrong way to deal with that? > > You state of annoyment is likely continue if you keep using vague > identifiers like "it" without explaining what "it" is. What happens? > Private communications? Sure they do. I acknowledged that. Public > harassment on the list? You never said it happened and neither did > anybody else. Something else? I don't know what. > I don't see anything wrong in trying to define what you talking about > before committing to any solutions to "it". If you want to fix "it", > please define what "it" is and how what you are proposing would fix what > you defined. > > > Nothing can prevent someone to use fake emails, fake names or whatever > > I know to do such things. But a CoC is about helping the persons > > involved and avoid situations where public lynching may happen based > > on wrong information. > > Saying "it's about helping" is not a guarantee something opposite > wouldn't happen. Relying on "don't worry, we're here to help you, we're > good people, thus we can do no wrong" - I'm sorry but this is not really > enough assurance for the powers you are requesting. I'm completely OK > with actual helping - mediation, etc. - I think I proposed it from the > start. But when you talking about power to hurt back - bans, etc. - then > I think there should be some good explanations when this power is to be > used, not just "trust us, we mean well". Definition should come before > powers. > > > No. You simply limit everything to your own view. I did not change my > > terms or definitions but try to make you understand what it means. But > > is rather hard. > > You didn't provide definitions for multitude of terms - "it", > "agressivity", "bad behavior", "psychological threat", etc. - and none > of them are obvious. You claim that routinely happens on the list and > that's what driving away many people. That makes me think something that > is routinely happening on the list you consider to be behavior that > should be banned by CoC, and that makes me worried because I don't see > anything worth being called harassment happening, and in my opinion CoC > is meant to deal with that. If you mean for CoC to deal with something > else - then I'd like to know what else and how. > > > What is bad enough? Insults? "you are wrong" is not an insult, "you > > "Insults" is clear, I know what an insult means, no need to provide the > official list of insults :) But that's not something we routinely see > happening here. > > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggressivity and 1. applies to > > 1. > characterized by or tending toward unprovoked offensives, attacks, > invasions, or the like; militantly forward or menacing: > > Sorry, not very helpful - it is just replacing one set of undefined > things with another - what is offensiveness? Maybe it's offensive to me > that somebody proposes to introduce generics to PHP (sorry, just a > random example :), while we did fine without them for 20 years. Or maybe > it's offensive to me when someone claims I don't understand their > argument, because it questions my mental capacities. Etc. I'm > exaggerating of course, the point is it is very subjective. "menacing" > is also completely subjective - one can feel menaced by a more skilled > debater that would destroy one's arguments, for example. "Forward" is > something we do not lack here, and I think it is a good thing, but is it > "militant"? Who knows. > > > Is it more clear? > > Not entirely, unfortunately. Again, I have a problem with the following > chain of arguments: > > 1. There's a set of behaviors X ("it", "aggressivity", etc.) that > routinely happens here on the list > 2. This set of behavior scares off (at least some) contributors > 3. This behavior is tantamount to harassment and is the reason why we > should create CoC and have CRT with punitive powers > 4. Once we do that, we will be able to stop this set of behaviors or at > least substantially diminish it, to the point where the contributors > mentioned in (2) are no longer reluctant to participate > 5. Doing that would not substantially hurt our ability to hold > discussions and reach hard decisions in a consensual manner > > I accept 1 and 2, but starting from 3 down I think all claims are false, > and in fact, with my current understanding of X, I think that 4 and 5 > are mutually exclusive. Maybe I do not understand what X is - that's why > I ask for clarifications.
One problem we discuss this using two different ends. I mainly focus on providing tools to ensure we have a safe context. While you seem to ensure that we do not mistakes, do not ban innocent or apply censorship inadvertently. This cannot go anywhere for our (you and me) discussion anywhere because I consider your valid questions as different topics (more about controlling the group etc) rather than about what 5p put in place to create a safe context, including actions.
