> Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic... Was there a rule that prohibits that? > concepts not backed by empirical ev

> Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic... Was there a rule that prohibits that? > concepts not backed by empirical evidence You can see evidence with your own eyes right here: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/10k31w3/d_iclr_now_has_a_track_with_racebased_and_more/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/10k31w3/d_... > Making light ... which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment No comment needed > Discussing bans or removals of community members Similar to violation of later Russian law that prohibits criticizing the government. > Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment. Sounds bad, but really hard to judge without examples. > Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts Was there a rule that prohibits that? > Use of potentially offensive terms Is this like a kitchen knife "potential instrument of murder", or "he said something we think might have offended someone else. We don't have anyone complaining yet, but let's ban just in case"? > Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health. > Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences. These two are problematic, but the first one may be valid depending on actual circumstances (e.g. if his assumption or speculations were correct, then there's nothing to blame the person for).