Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 05/06/18 06:41, Jason Petersen wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:59 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
>> <mailto:jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>> wrote:
>>
>> "snowflake", I find that term hilarious others find it highly
>> offensive. Which is correct?
>
> I don’t think it’s offensive but it plainly fails your “if you
> wouldn’t say it to a client, don’t say it here” test.
>
> Generally we so-called “snowflakes” aren’t the ones raising hell about
> CoCs, which is the third rail I’ve seen most likely to set off the
> actually hypersensitive types who fling this so-called insult around.
>
> To be honest, examples like “sacrifice a willing virgin” or “offering
> my first born […]”, etc. do not contribute to conversations but rather
> bury rhetorical and technical weaknesses under a top layer of
> historical/emotional semiotic thatch that must be cut through to
> appropriately determine the validity of an argument. I do not
> understand what one might hope to preserve by ensuring users of such
> phrases are permitted to continue putting up such smokescreens.
Dem der big words you be using!  You are over analysing.

Nothings buried!

Note that in discussing the CoC, I've not used colourful language as
part of, nor instead of, any argument I've presented -- other than as
examples.

Any real difficulties would be mentioned explicitly, if not already
known by the listener.

If a rational argument is needed, it can/will be provided. Colourful
language is no substitute for valid arguments, that we are agreed. Nor
should it be used as a smokescreen.

Colourful language makes conversation less stilted when used
'appropriately', and can help bonding.  A lot depends on context.

One place where I worked, I pretended to blame people for things outside
their control.  There were 4 people I didn't indulge such humour too: 
the manager (it may well have been his fault, and he would likely take
it badly in any case), the technical manager (he was too stressed), and
2 people who obviously did not appreciate that kind of humour.  Others
had no problem with it.

With some friends/colleagues I've used grossly offensive language.
However, in the context it's been taking in the spirit intended and not
at face value.  Though, I'm careful not to overdo it, and not every time
we spoke.  There are things I  might say face-to-face, that I would not
write in an email -- as I've no idea of how the reader might be feeling
when they read, context and body language are important to consider.

>
> Ultimately, the important thing this CoC provides is some concrete
> language to point at when a party is aggrieved and explicit avenues of
> redress available when one refuses to address one’s own behavior.
> We’re adults here, the strawmen of people being harangued out of the
> community because they said a bad word are unlikely to materialize.
>
> +1

If we are all adults, then we don't need a CoC.

I fear that the CoC is likely to be misused.

Have seen many heated arguments in these lists, but none that got out of
hand.

I strongly feel that a CoC is neither needed nor useful here. It is a
Politically Correct check list item.

-100

Cheers,
Gavin