> If someone is detrimental to the community because of their actions within the community, that makes the resolution fairly obvious without a need to codify th

> If someone is detrimental to the community because of their actions within the community, that makes the resolution fairly obvious without a need to codify this in a document focused mostly on ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Funnily enough, it's usually highly political to suggest that someone might be detrimental to the community, even when it's obvious. I constantly see women leave communities because it's less of a hassle to find a group that actively seeks to protect its members than to try and gain enough political capital and put up with enough crap to get members thrown out. The people with no personal problems in those same communities never realise that there's a problem - they never realise that their community could benefit from kicking out the bigots, or even asking them to tone it down a little. And in fact they'll often actively fight to ensure that people suffer no consequences for their actions.