3 ms·

To the folks that say they won't contribute if there's a CoC: this just proves they're working. If you can't avoid the behavior called out in a CoC, then we don

To the folks that say they won't contribute if there's a CoC: this just proves they're working. If you can't avoid the behavior called out in a CoC, then we don't want you to contribute. Thank you for self-selecting yourself away from us. I dealt with abusive contributors at Wikimedia Foundation for years, and it wasn't until a CoC was added that coordinators were actually empowered to ban those abusive volunteers. Can you guess which members of the community were also the most vehemently against the CoCs?

ranger_danger 1y ago
False equivalence IMO... you're implying that people who don't want a CoC will actually behave badly, and I don't think that's accurate at all, at least not for the majority. > it wasn't until a CoC was added that coordinators were actually empowered to ban those abusive volunteers IMO that is just bad leadership... they could (and should) have taken action against abusive people regardless.
- ryan_lane 1y ago
  > you're implying that people who don't want a CoC will actually behave badly, and I don't think that's accurate at all, at least not for the majority If you fight against a code of conduct, which has a more listed out version of "don't harass people", then you're already acting badly. It's at minimum a red flag. There's very little that should be controversial in a CoC. > IMO that is just bad leadership... they could (and should) have taken action against abusive people regardless. It's hard to justify kicking someone out of a community without being able to point to a rule they've broken, which is the entire point of the CoC. None of us want to have to make these things, or enforce them. We just want to work on projects together. These things exist because shitty people cause problems, and then when we try to eject them, they act like victims. When we set rules up front, then enforce them, it takes part of the problem out of the equation. It doesn't fully solve the "playing the victim" part, because folks then start claiming they're being selectively targeted, and start pointing out super minor violations often using out of context quotes, but it's impossible to solve for everything.

ranger_danger 1y ago

False equivalence IMO... you're implying that people who don't want a CoC will actually behave badly, and I don't think that's accurate at all, at least not for the majority. > it wasn't until a CoC was added that coordinators were actually empowered to ban those abusive volunteers IMO that is just bad leadership... they could (and should) have taken action against abusive people regardless.

ryan_lane 1y ago
> you're implying that people who don't want a CoC will actually behave badly, and I don't think that's accurate at all, at least not for the majority If you fight against a code of conduct, which has a more listed out version of "don't harass people", then you're already acting badly. It's at minimum a red flag. There's very little that should be controversial in a CoC. > IMO that is just bad leadership... they could (and should) have taken action against abusive people regardless. It's hard to justify kicking someone out of a community without being able to point to a rule they've broken, which is the entire point of the CoC. None of us want to have to make these things, or enforce them. We just want to work on projects together. These things exist because shitty people cause problems, and then when we try to eject them, they act like victims. When we set rules up front, then enforce them, it takes part of the problem out of the equation. It doesn't fully solve the "playing the victim" part, because folks then start claiming they're being selectively targeted, and start pointing out super minor violations often using out of context quotes, but it's impossible to solve for everything.