> Utilizing emojis and turns of phrase in ways that can be misconstrued or perceived entirely differently by different people. Ridiculous. Absolutely anything

> Utilizing emojis and turns of phrase in ways that can be misconstrued or perceived entirely differently by different people. Ridiculous. Absolutely anything can be misconstrued. As Peters said: > If you're determined to take offense, offense is what you'll find. > When someone tells you something said earlier was problematic, listen. That is not an opportunity for debate. That is an expression of pain. It is time to stop and reflect upon what has happened. Also ridiculous. Guilty by accusation, without even the possibility of proving one‘s innocence. > SC member Emily Morehouse pointed out that it is often difficult to communicate what led to a specific code-of-conduct action. If you cannot even explain your actions, it is very likely they were not justified, and you should not have taken them. > But it is not really a surprise that Peters is already missed. Serhiy Storchaka asked about contacting Peters for his technical expertise, which Wouters seemingly discouraged; Storchaka specifically said he was not trying to route around the SC decision, but might be able to continue to work with Peters through GitHub. Meanwhile, in a thread about possible changes to the voting system for SC elections, Guido van Rossum noted that the voting-system expert he knows is banned: "Maybe we can wait until his 3-month ban expires and ask him for advice?" Great way to get rid of technically excellent and highly valued contributors… what a shame.