3 ms·

I'm sorry, but this post (yours) and the original post (kev009's) seem like unreasonable exaggerations. Emphasis on the "unreasonable". Unreasonable exaggerat

I'm sorry, but this post (yours) and the original post (kev009's) seem like unreasonable exaggerations. Emphasis on the "unreasonable". Unreasonable exaggerations of other people's viewpoints fosters low-quality discussion, which is why I don't like it. Banning is a common response to harassment. Hacker News uses it, we even have multiple types of banning, including the shadowban and hellban. We know that "crucifixion" is hyperbolical language, and we can ordinarily forgive someone for being hyperbolical, but in this case it's simply an unreasonable exaggeration. The same applies to your use of the term "ultimatum". That's an unreasonable exaggeration. It depicts the contents of the original article inaccurately. She detailed no consequences nor threatened retaliation in her request that a user be banned. You can call it a "demand" instead of a "request", but "ultimatum" is simply incorrect. Honestly, I can understand and relate to both her request and the core developers' response, but I'm not convinced that a code of conduct is a prerequisite for banning abusive community members. Explicit political authority is great, but we shouldn't be automatically afraid to use implicit political authority.

geofft 11y ago
Yeah, "ultimatum" is a somewhat strong word. I do want to be clear that I don't mean that it was in any way an ridiculous request/demand/ultimatum: expelling them from the community would in my opinion have been the right thing to do, and in my opinion is an entirely fair thing to insist on and not be willing to compromise on. What I mean to convey is that, if someone makes a demand that they're unwilling to compromise on or discuss, and you're are unable to satisfy the demand as stated, regardless of whether you want to seek a resolution along those lines, you have no good options. Of course in a healthy project there wouldn't be much need to discuss banning people who are harassing other community members. But mechanically it still has the downside of an ultimatum, even if the connotation of the term is wrong. That is why I chose that word, and I apologize for not having been clearer about what I meant with it. I do agree that greater willingness to use implicit political authority is generally a good thing for healthy projects. (Though maybe there is something complicated like not actually having technical control of the relevant IRC channels or something annoying like that, I don't know. In some open-source projects I'm active in, the core teams' ability to respond to harassment is somewhat weakened or at least rate-limited by using IRC servers, code-review forums, etc. run by unrelated teams, and I've seen people be hurt by abusers taking advantage of this technical limitation.)
- dietrichepp 11y ago
  I simply didn't get the idea that she was unwilling to compromise or discuss the matter, apparently you got a different impression. And I think it is—unfortunately—normal for a healthy community to discuss banning users who harass others, because users who harass others are everywhere, until they are kicked out.

geofft 11y ago

Yeah, "ultimatum" is a somewhat strong word. I do want to be clear that I don't mean that it was in any way an ridiculous request/demand/ultimatum: expelling them from the community would in my opinion have been the right thing to do, and in my opinion is an entirely fair thing to insist on and not be willing to compromise on. What I mean to convey is that, if someone makes a demand that they're unwilling to compromise on or discuss, and you're are unable to satisfy the demand as stated, regardless of whether you want to seek a resolution along those lines, you have no good options. Of course in a healthy project there wouldn't be much need to discuss banning people who are harassing other community members. But mechanically it still has the downside of an ultimatum, even if the connotation of the term is wrong. That is why I chose that word, and I apologize for not having been clearer about what I meant with it. I do agree that greater willingness to use implicit political authority is generally a good thing for healthy projects. (Though maybe there is something complicated like not actually having technical control of the relevant IRC channels or something annoying like that, I don't know. In some open-source projects I'm active in, the core teams' ability to respond to harassment is somewhat weakened or at least rate-limited by using IRC servers, code-review forums, etc. run by unrelated teams, and I've seen people be hurt by abusers taking advantage of this technical limitation.)

dietrichepp 11y ago
I simply didn't get the idea that she was unwilling to compromise or discuss the matter, apparently you got a different impression. And I think it is—unfortunately—normal for a healthy community to discuss banning users who harass others, because users who harass others are everywhere, until they are kicked out.