Interesting "Mr. Nutter inserted himself into a public Twitter conversation" means replying to a tweet that was @ directed to him? He was explicitly invited to

Interesting "Mr. Nutter inserted himself into a public Twitter conversation" means replying to a tweet that was @ directed to him? He was explicitly invited to participate in the conversation. I'm confused here. That seems like a very wide stretch, right? He was replying normally, not "butting in" to someone else's conversation, it seems to me. Now, I don't know what else has happened in the ten years, as I don't follow ruby drama, and only this isolated (and frankly it's very weak on its own) episode is given. I do wonder though, as this blog post mentions, if this decision was tied up with the introduction of the Code of Conduct. For example: Want to ban someone -> install code of conduct -> ban someone. So, instead of a code of conduct being a guideline for good behaviour, instead of implementing one as a positive change for the community, its could have been written and implemented just to target and exclude one individual. I'm guessing here, of course, but the CoC was written a little only 2 months ago I think, and it does seem like Mr Nutter was in his bad books for over 10 years. We cannot know. I'd guess that you wouldn't need a Code of Conduct to ban someone, right? If you run the project you should be free to control who contributes. My query is with Codes of Conduct as a tool of power. I wonder about Codes of Conducts as a form of control, rather than diversity and inclusiveness. It can be used to exclude and make people feel less welcome - it can be a powerful weapon for good and ill. The document does not make those who enforce it good or evil.