James Lowe <james.l...@posteo.net> writes: > On 06/02/2020 15:37, David Kastrup wrote: >> Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: >> >>>> I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him [David K.], if >>>> you think he is wrong. Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_ >>>> offending. >>> That's it. >> But new contributors cannot be expected to know, and also it takes time >> until the emotional response aligns with that knowledge. > > That is not your responsibility.
It's been my experience that patching a problem close to its source tends to be most effective. I am working on an Email signature that might be helping to convey the message. Appended manually here: I still have to check how to make this automatic. >> It's good advice, like "stay away from that trapdoor in the kitchen >> leading to the snake pit". But it's still a kitchen layout that may >> come unexpected. >> > Goodness gracious! > > Do all those who feel so positive about CoCs not see how that > paragraph above is just so bloody soul destroying? > > I don't need a document written by a committee of people that I have > no say over (i.e. what we do in the real world) and done need to be > told what I can say within the LP community. I already know how to be > civil, whether my brand of civility is yours, is nothing I care about. > > This is just 'Thought Police' by a different name or at the very least > an exercise in tedious moral relativism. A Code of Conduct attempts to address a problem. In the version we have here, it provides a promise of recourse, enforcement and closure for those negatively affected by someone's behavior. That is a defensible approach for deliberate offenses. In my own case, it would either ultimately lead to my removal, or the promise of recourse, enforcement and closure would be hollow. If changing myself was a workable option, I'd bloody have brought this personality back to the store and gotten myself a properly functioning one, sometime these last 50+ years. Now at least we don't have to deal with the problem of myself being intolerable specifically to demographic minorities. I have siblings. When the first of them presented future in-laws to the rest of the family, there was a bit of a problem. We called each other names, tried to punch one another in passing, things like that. The in-laws thought we were moments before bringing out the knives and couldn't understand what triggered the crisis. While we were just socialising. It took some time to understand the problem and a lot more time to ameliorate it, partly by changes in behavior, partly by others learning to interpret it. This kind of insider/outsider behavior difference does not work well for open groups. I appreciate the company of people who know to read me, but it just cannot be taken for granted. > Wow.. I didn't quite realise how opposed I was to CoCs until now and > I've recently have a belly-full of being told that X is good because > "...everyone else is doing it" or that Y is needed because > ... "...well it's just 'easier' if we do it ..." without any real > justification. > > Apple carts unfortunately get upset once in a while. That is just life. Well, one can make them more robust, and that may be worth thinking about. -- David Kastrup My replies are known to frequently cause friction. To help mitigating damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".
