Yeah, this PR is a step back.

Explicitly spelling out these things is necessary, because as other people have pointed out, assholes can and will carefully toe the line otherwise.

In fact, I’ve seen people claim they’re the victim of harassment — after being called out for their asshole behavior.

For example, bigotry needs to be specifically disallowed, and those forms of bigotry need to be specified. Otherwise you get situations like someone saying something bigoted, getting (rightfully) cussed out for it, and then claiming they were the victim after spewing hate speech.

Removes repetitions and other pointless wording that doesn't apply specifically to the PolyMC community.

I am curious what this is referring to. What did you remove that "doesn't apply" to the PolyMC community?

Removes repetitions and other pointless wording that doesn't apply specifically to the PolyMC community.

I am curious what this is referring to. What did you remove that "doesn't apply" to the PolyMC community?

The part mentioning people appointed as representatives for in-person and online events.

Removes repetitions and other pointless wording that doesn't apply specifically to the PolyMC community.

I am curious what this is referring to. What did you remove that "doesn't apply" to the PolyMC community?

The part mentioning people appointed as representatives for in-person and online events.

That may not be relevant today, but that’s one small part and isn’t a big deal. It certainly doesn’t explain the large cuts you’ve made elsewhere.

To be honest, I don’t think this PR was made in good faith.

Yeah, this PR is a step back.

Explicitly spelling out these things is necessary, because as other people have pointed out, assholes can and will carefully toe the line otherwise.

In fact, I’ve seen people claim they’re the victim of harassment — after being called out for their asshole behavior.

For example, bigotry needs to be specifically disallowed, and those forms of bigotry need to be specified. Otherwise you get situations like someone saying something bigoted, getting (rightfully) cussed out for it, and then claiming they were the victim after spewing hate speech.

This doesn't change enforcement at all, it doesn't change what people can and can't do, so I don't understand "assholes can and will toe the line otherwise" since it doesn't change what people can do.

Removes repetitions and other pointless wording that doesn't apply specifically to the PolyMC community.

I am curious what this is referring to. What did you remove that "doesn't apply" to the PolyMC community?

The part mentioning people appointed as representatives for in-person and online events.

That may not be relevant today, but that’s one small part and isn’t a big deal. It certainly doesn’t explain the large cuts you’ve made elsewhere.

To be honest, I don’t think this PR was made in good faith.

It is one small part and isn't a big deal, but that doesn't mean the change shouldn't be made, I just wanted to do changes wherever I thought they were needed not depending on whether it's a big deal. The other parts I removed because they are unnecessary or repetition like I said before. It's not made in bad faith.

Yeah, this PR is a step back.
Explicitly spelling out these things is necessary, because as other people have pointed out, assholes can and will carefully toe the line otherwise.
In fact, I’ve seen people claim they’re the victim of harassment — after being called out for their asshole behavior.
For example, bigotry needs to be specifically disallowed, and those forms of bigotry need to be specified. Otherwise you get situations like someone saying something bigoted, getting (rightfully) cussed out for it, and then claiming they were the victim after spewing hate speech.

This doesn't change enforcement at all, it doesn't change what people can and can't do, so I don't understand "assholes can and will toe the line otherwise" since it doesn't change what people can do.

It changes what people can do by changing how moderation decisions are made. If you’re not very clear what is not okay, people will bend the rules as much as they can. Clearly defined rules like this make that harder.

If you don’t think wording like this changes how rules like this are applied, you’ve either never paid attention, or you don’t care when rules like this are bent, often at the expense of the well-being of valued members of the community.

I seriously don’t think you’re informed enough about moderation decisions to make changes like these, and you definitely lack the life experiences to understand why rules like these are necessary.

Yeah, this PR is a step back.
Explicitly spelling out these things is necessary, because as other people have pointed out, assholes can and will carefully toe the line otherwise.
In fact, I’ve seen people claim they’re the victim of harassment — after being called out for their asshole behavior.
For example, bigotry needs to be specifically disallowed, and those forms of bigotry need to be specified. Otherwise you get situations like someone saying something bigoted, getting (rightfully) cussed out for it, and then claiming they were the victim after spewing hate speech.

This doesn't change enforcement at all, it doesn't change what people can and can't do, so I don't understand "assholes can and will toe the line otherwise" since it doesn't change what people can do.

It changes what people can do by changing how moderation decisions are made. If you’re not very clear what is not okay, people will bend the rules as much as they can. Clearly defined rules like this make that harder.

If you don’t think wording like this changes how rules like this are applied, you’ve either never paid attention, or you don’t care when rules like this are bent, often at the expense of the well-being of valued members of the community.

I seriously don’t think you’re informed enough about moderation decisions to make changes like these, and you definitely lack the life experiences to understand why rules like these are necessary.

Explain how they change what people can do then. Which change makes it less clear what's not okay? And which change changes how moderation decisions are made?

The purpose of the PR is to be more concise without changing the rules or how moderation is done, and I don't see how it fails at that.

Yeah, this PR is a step back.
Explicitly spelling out these things is necessary, because as other people have pointed out, assholes can and will carefully toe the line otherwise.
In fact, I’ve seen people claim they’re the victim of harassment — after being called out for their asshole behavior.
For example, bigotry needs to be specifically disallowed, and those forms of bigotry need to be specified. Otherwise you get situations like someone saying something bigoted, getting (rightfully) cussed out for it, and then claiming they were the victim after spewing hate speech.

This doesn't change enforcement at all, it doesn't change what people can and can't do, so I don't understand "assholes can and will toe the line otherwise" since it doesn't change what people can do.

It changes what people can do by changing how moderation decisions are made. If you’re not very clear what is not okay, people will bend the rules as much as they can. Clearly defined rules like this make that harder.
If you don’t think wording like this changes how rules like this are applied, you’ve either never paid attention, or you don’t care when rules like this are bent, often at the expense of the well-being of valued members of the community.
I seriously don’t think you’re informed enough about moderation decisions to make changes like these, and you definitely lack the life experiences to understand why rules like these are necessary.

Explain how they change what people can do then. Which change makes it less clear what's not okay? And which change changes how moderation decisions are made?

I just did. Explaining specifically what kinds of behavior are not acceptable is exactly how. Like multiple people have been trying to tell you, without it assholes have more leeway to avoid being sanctioned, and often even reverse the roles of victim and offender: Making people feel unsafe, and then claiming they’re the victim when people react with justified hostility to their bigotry.

If you don’t understand that, you’re not qualified to be editing this document at all.

Yeah, this PR is a step back.
Explicitly spelling out these things is necessary, because as other people have pointed out, assholes can and will carefully toe the line otherwise.
In fact, I’ve seen people claim they’re the victim of harassment — after being called out for their asshole behavior.
For example, bigotry needs to be specifically disallowed, and those forms of bigotry need to be specified. Otherwise you get situations like someone saying something bigoted, getting (rightfully) cussed out for it, and then claiming they were the victim after spewing hate speech.

This doesn't change enforcement at all, it doesn't change what people can and can't do, so I don't understand "assholes can and will toe the line otherwise" since it doesn't change what people can do.

It changes what people can do by changing how moderation decisions are made. If you’re not very clear what is not okay, people will bend the rules as much as they can. Clearly defined rules like this make that harder.
If you don’t think wording like this changes how rules like this are applied, you’ve either never paid attention, or you don’t care when rules like this are bent, often at the expense of the well-being of valued members of the community.
I seriously don’t think you’re informed enough about moderation decisions to make changes like these, and you definitely lack the life experiences to understand why rules like these are necessary.

Explain how they change what people can do then. Which change makes it less clear what's not okay? And which change changes how moderation decisions are made?

I just did. Explaining specifically what kinds of behavior are not acceptable is exactly how. Like multiple people have been trying to tell you, without it assholes have more leeway to avoid being sanctioned, and often even reverse the roles of victim and offender: Making people feel unsafe, and then claiming they’re the victim when people react with justified hostility to their bigotry.

If you don’t understand that, you’re not qualified to be editing this document at all.

What I meant is can you show the example of which change I made removes some explanation of what behaviour is wrong, and which change I made that changes moderation. Sorry for wording it badly the first time.

Yeah, this PR is a step back.
Explicitly spelling out these things is necessary, because as other people have pointed out, assholes can and will carefully toe the line otherwise.
In fact, I’ve seen people claim they’re the victim of harassment — after being called out for their asshole behavior.
For example, bigotry needs to be specifically disallowed, and those forms of bigotry need to be specified. Otherwise you get situations like someone saying something bigoted, getting (rightfully) cussed out for it, and then claiming they were the victim after spewing hate speech.

This doesn't change enforcement at all, it doesn't change what people can and can't do, so I don't understand "assholes can and will toe the line otherwise" since it doesn't change what people can do.

It changes what people can do by changing how moderation decisions are made. If you’re not very clear what is not okay, people will bend the rules as much as they can. Clearly defined rules like this make that harder.
If you don’t think wording like this changes how rules like this are applied, you’ve either never paid attention, or you don’t care when rules like this are bent, often at the expense of the well-being of valued members of the community.
I seriously don’t think you’re informed enough about moderation decisions to make changes like these, and you definitely lack the life experiences to understand why rules like these are necessary.

Explain how they change what people can do then. Which change makes it less clear what's not okay? And which change changes how moderation decisions are made?

I just did. Explaining specifically what kinds of behavior are not acceptable is exactly how. Like multiple people have been trying to tell you, without it assholes have more leeway to avoid being sanctioned, and often even reverse the roles of victim and offender: Making people feel unsafe, and then claiming they’re the victim when people react with justified hostility to their bigotry.
If you don’t understand that, you’re not qualified to be editing this document at all.

What I meant is can you show the example of which change I made removes some explanation of what behaviour is wrong, and which change I made that changes moderation.

I just did. Changing wording changes moderation. You specifically removed large sections explaining that discriminatory or hateful speech is prohibited, and the section listing common groups such hate speech is directed at.

That is specifically making things more vague and changing how moderation is done. It gives people more leeway to be assholes because they can say there’s nothing specifically against what they did, and they can endlessly argue about definitions of such loosely defined rules.

You specifically removed large sections explaining that discriminatory or hateful speech is prohibited

If I did, that was accidental because I was trying to reword stuff so it semantically meant the same thing but avoided repeating stuff. So for example, I put hateful, harassing, abusive behaviour under the category of "unacceptable" then replaced any other occurrences of the groupings of "hateful", "harassing", "abusive" etc. as "unacceptable" to make sure it covered all unacceptable behaviour and avoid repeating the individual things. Like having a constant variable unacceptable = (X, y, z) and using unacceptable to refer to that group instead of writing (X, y, z) every time and the list can have stuff added to it without having to edit each occurrence individually. That's what I would do if I was cleaning up some code that repeated stuff like that.

You specifically removed large sections explaining that discriminatory or hateful speech is prohibited

If I did, that was accidental because I was trying to reword stuff so it said the same thing but avoided repeating the same thing. So for example, I put hateful, harassing, abusive behaviour under the category of "unacceptable" then replaced any other occurrences of the groupings of "hateful", "harassing", "abusive" etc. as "unacceptable" to make sure it covered all unacceptable behaviour and avoid repeating the individual things. Like having a constant variable unacceptable = (X, y, z) and using unacceptable to refer to that group instead of writing (X, y, z) every time and the list can have stuff added to it without having to edit each occurrence individually. That's what I would do if I was cleaning up some code that repeated stuff like that.

The problem is people have different definitions of “unacceptable”

That definition is very important, and by being specific about what we mean here we avoid ambiguity and wiggle room for bad behavior.

You can say “your behavior is unacceptable” while banning someone, or dispensing some other punishment, but in a document like this you need to be specific or it’s useless.

You specifically removed large sections explaining that discriminatory or hateful speech is prohibited

If I did, that was accidental because I was trying to reword stuff so it said the same thing but avoided repeating the same thing. So for example, I put hateful, harassing, abusive behaviour under the category of "unacceptable" then replaced any other occurrences of the groupings of "hateful", "harassing", "abusive" etc. as "unacceptable" to make sure it covered all unacceptable behaviour and avoid repeating the individual things. Like having a constant variable unacceptable = (X, y, z) and using unacceptable to refer to that group instead of writing (X, y, z) every time and the list can have stuff added to it without having to edit each occurrence individually. That's what I would do if I was cleaning up some code that repeated stuff like that.

The problem is people have different definitions of “unacceptable”

That definition is very important, and by being specific about what we mean here we avoid ambiguity and wiggle room for bad behavior.

You can say “your behavior is unacceptable” while banning someone, or dispensing some other punishment, but in a document like this you need to be specific or it’s useless.

The CoC specifically defines unacceptable behaviour. And it includes discrimination, abusive behaviour, harassment, trolling, etc.

You specifically removed large sections explaining that discriminatory or hateful speech is prohibited

If I did, that was accidental because I was trying to reword stuff so it said the same thing but avoided repeating the same thing. So for example, I put hateful, harassing, abusive behaviour under the category of "unacceptable" then replaced any other occurrences of the groupings of "hateful", "harassing", "abusive" etc. as "unacceptable" to make sure it covered all unacceptable behaviour and avoid repeating the individual things. Like having a constant variable unacceptable = (X, y, z) and using unacceptable to refer to that group instead of writing (X, y, z) every time and the list can have stuff added to it without having to edit each occurrence individually. That's what I would do if I was cleaning up some code that repeated stuff like that.

The problem is people have different definitions of “unacceptable”
That definition is very important, and by being specific about what we mean here we avoid ambiguity and wiggle room for bad behavior.
You can say “your behavior is unacceptable” while banning someone, or dispensing some other punishment, but in a document like this you need to be specific or it’s useless.

The CoC specifically defines unacceptable behaviour. And it includes discrimination, abusive behaviour, harassment, trolling, etc.

You’ve literally just removed a large part of the document that defines unacceptable behavior.

You specifically removed large sections explaining that discriminatory or hateful speech is prohibited

If I did, that was accidental because I was trying to reword stuff so it said the same thing but avoided repeating the same thing. So for example, I put hateful, harassing, abusive behaviour under the category of "unacceptable" then replaced any other occurrences of the groupings of "hateful", "harassing", "abusive" etc. as "unacceptable" to make sure it covered all unacceptable behaviour and avoid repeating the individual things. Like having a constant variable unacceptable = (X, y, z) and using unacceptable to refer to that group instead of writing (X, y, z) every time and the list can have stuff added to it without having to edit each occurrence individually. That's what I would do if I was cleaning up some code that repeated stuff like that.

The problem is people have different definitions of “unacceptable”
That definition is very important, and by being specific about what we mean here we avoid ambiguity and wiggle room for bad behavior.
You can say “your behavior is unacceptable” while banning someone, or dispensing some other punishment, but in a document like this you need to be specific or it’s useless.

The CoC specifically defines unacceptable behaviour. And it includes discrimination, abusive behaviour, harassment, trolling, etc.

You’ve literally just removed a large part of the document that defines unacceptable behavior.

I'm really sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but I think you might be reading the diff wrong. Look at the rendered document, it clearly has the definitions for unacceptable behaviour. https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/blob/coc-fix/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

Edit: seen that discrimination wasn't listed, that is an error that can be fixed, but the point is that the list that defines unacceptable behaviour is there.

You specifically removed large sections explaining that discriminatory or hateful speech is prohibited

If I did, that was accidental because I was trying to reword stuff so it said the same thing but avoided repeating the same thing. So for example, I put hateful, harassing, abusive behaviour under the category of "unacceptable" then replaced any other occurrences of the groupings of "hateful", "harassing", "abusive" etc. as "unacceptable" to make sure it covered all unacceptable behaviour and avoid repeating the individual things. Like having a constant variable unacceptable = (X, y, z) and using unacceptable to refer to that group instead of writing (X, y, z) every time and the list can have stuff added to it without having to edit each occurrence individually. That's what I would do if I was cleaning up some code that repeated stuff like that.

The problem is people have different definitions of “unacceptable”
That definition is very important, and by being specific about what we mean here we avoid ambiguity and wiggle room for bad behavior.
You can say “your behavior is unacceptable” while banning someone, or dispensing some other punishment, but in a document like this you need to be specific or it’s useless.

The CoC specifically defines unacceptable behaviour. And it includes discrimination, abusive behaviour, harassment, trolling, etc.

You’ve literally just removed a large part of the document that defines unacceptable behavior.

I'm really sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but I think you might be reading the diff wrong. Look at the rendered document, it clearly has the definitions for unacceptable behaviour. https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/blob/coc-fix/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

I looked. Several times. As I’ve said, the changes you’ve made introduce too much leeway, and you aren’t qualified to be making them.

You specifically removed large sections explaining that discriminatory or hateful speech is prohibited

If I did, that was accidental because I was trying to reword stuff so it said the same thing but avoided repeating the same thing. So for example, I put hateful, harassing, abusive behaviour under the category of "unacceptable" then replaced any other occurrences of the groupings of "hateful", "harassing", "abusive" etc. as "unacceptable" to make sure it covered all unacceptable behaviour and avoid repeating the individual things. Like having a constant variable unacceptable = (X, y, z) and using unacceptable to refer to that group instead of writing (X, y, z) every time and the list can have stuff added to it without having to edit each occurrence individually. That's what I would do if I was cleaning up some code that repeated stuff like that.

The problem is people have different definitions of “unacceptable”
That definition is very important, and by being specific about what we mean here we avoid ambiguity and wiggle room for bad behavior.
You can say “your behavior is unacceptable” while banning someone, or dispensing some other punishment, but in a document like this you need to be specific or it’s useless.

The CoC specifically defines unacceptable behaviour. And it includes discrimination, abusive behaviour, harassment, trolling, etc.

You’ve literally just removed a large part of the document that defines unacceptable behavior.

I'm really sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but I think you might be reading the diff wrong. Look at the rendered document, it clearly has the definitions for unacceptable behaviour. https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/blob/coc-fix/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

I looked. Several times. As I’ve said, the changes you’ve made introduce too much leeway, and you aren’t qualified to be making them.

Then please show the part of the diff where I removed part of the document that defines unacceptable behaviour.

Either directly quote the diff, or don't bother responding.

This seems to be changing the document for the sake of changing it. There is not much need to edit an already popular, well-established, and well-understood code of conduct document for aesthetic reasons; it's like producing a modified version of the LGPL that rewords 90% of the text and slightly modifies the other 10%. Why? Burying the changes in a pile of rewordings makes them much harder to find.

Also, you cannot rely on tech bros to understand that "harassment free for everyone" really means everyone. Sorry. The explicit listing of categories that will not become an axis of discrimination provides assurance to members of a minority in one of those categories, enshrined in an official document, that yes, PolyMC will be a welcoming space for them. This is the reason the listing was included in the Covenant in the first place. Removing this for the sake of terseness is not necessary or helpful.

That's what I would do if I was cleaning up some code that repeated stuff like that.

This isn't code.

This is a very big mistake and kinda lets slip that you don't really get what a code of conduct is for.

-@LemmaEOF

This seems to be changing the document for the sake of changing it. There is not much need to edit an already popular, well-established, and well-understood code of conduct document for aesthetic reasons; it's like producing a modified version of the LGPL that rewords 90% of the text and slightly modifies the other 10%. Why? Burying the changes in a pile of rewordings makes them much harder to find.

Also, you cannot rely on tech bros to understand that "harassment free for everyone" really means everyone. Sorry. The explicit listing of categories that will not become an axis of discrimination provides assurance to members of a minority in one of those categories, enshrined in an official document, that yes, PolyMC will be a welcoming space for them. This is the reason the listing was included in the Covenant in the first place. Removing this for the sake of terseness is not necessary or helpful.

That's what I would do if I was cleaning up some code that repeated stuff like that.

This isn't code.

-@quat1024

God damn it not again. I don't have much to add, but jumping on to make it known (outside of reacts) that this is bad and you clearly have no idea what a code of conduct is for. The "redundancy" is the entire goddamned point.

Sure, maybe you think this is "obvious" or "common sense". But this isn't for you. This is a published set of rules and guidelines for all contributors.

-@unascribed

I agree with all of these, of course. But I also genuinely don’t think Lenny is arguing in good faith at this point. Go look in the PolyMC discord before someone purges it (as often happens)

You can see a bit of it in this thread too, but I have answered the same questions over and over and gotten increasingly frustrated.

Lenny needs to be demoted for this bullshit. It is at best a naive waste of time, and at worst an active attempt to sabotage the code of conduct.

Having these included makes people who are discriminated against for these specific reasons feel safe. A blanket "everyone" does not. This is coming from a person who has been discriminated against on the basis of age, invisible disabilities, nationality, personal appearance, religion (specifically a lack thereof), and sexual orientation. I'd rather these be left in.
The other changes are fine.

I don't really understand how "everyone" is different from "everyone regardless of x, y, z" because to me they seem to mean the same thing since "everyone" already doesn't exclude anyone. What about it makes it feel more safe? To me, it seems like both of them are against all types of discrimination so they would both feel safe against being discriminated.

Look we're telling you why it's wrong because of our life experiences, and we're telling you how to make us feel safer. If you're not going to listen to the people whom the CoC specifically helps, then what's the point? Might as well dumb it down to a single line: Don't be an ass, or remove it completely. That's basically how vague you're making it.

Like @chexo3 said, you've probably never been affected by any of these issues, and possibly won't in the future either. Either accept the reviews from affected people, or remove yourself from the discussion (Pardon my tone).

No one wants conservative white men dictating what women can and can't do with their own bodies.
No one wants religious fanatics dictating what can and can't be done in a secular country.
No one wants CisHets dictating what is "normal" and what anyone else can or can't do with their lives.
Similarly, no one wants someone who is not specifically affected by this CoC to be making changes to it, especially for the worse.

Also, you're treating this like code, not like a social issue. That's not okay.

Having these included makes people who are discriminated against for these specific reasons feel safe. A blanket "everyone" does not. This is coming from a person who has been discriminated against on the basis of age, invisible disabilities, nationality, personal appearance, religion (specifically a lack thereof), and sexual orientation. I'd rather these be left in.
The other changes are fine.

I don't really understand how "everyone" is different from "everyone regardless of x, y, z" because to me they seem to mean the same thing since "everyone" already doesn't exclude anyone. What about it makes it feel more safe? To me, it seems like both of them are against all types of discrimination so they would both feel safe against being discriminated.

Look we're telling you why it's wrong because of our life experiences, and we're telling how to make us feel safer. If you're not going to listen to the people whom the CoC specifically helps, then what's the point? Might as well dumb it down to a single line: Don't be an ass, or remove it completely. That's basically how vague you're making it.

Like @chexo3 said, you've probably never been affected by any of these issues, and possibly won't in the future either. Either accept the reviews from affected people, or remove yourself from the discussion (Pardon my tone).

No one wants conservative white men dictating what women can and can't do with their own bodies. No one wants religious fanatics dictating what can and can't be done in a secular country. No one wants CisHets dictating what is "normal" and what anyone else can or can't do with their lives. Similarly, no one wants someone who is not specifically affected by this CoC to be making changes to it, especially for the worse.

Also, you're treating this like code, not like a social issue. That's not okay.

Lenny is refusing to see reason on Discord still. Could you help? People keep fucking bringing up compromise when the only acceptable compromise is going to remove 90% of the content of this PR anyways. I just want him to delete it and accept it. Not keep it going like some lifeless husk.

This gets a NACK from me. As others have already pointed out, it doesn't make much sense to change a well established document, as it kinda defeats the purpose of using the Contributor Covenant. @LennyMcLennington your changes kinda go towards #184, which has already been deemed as unsuitable for this project.

Go look in the PolyMC discord before someone purges it (as often happens)

Please document it here instead of directing people at a black hole of information. We basically never purge any messages.

Edit: Just checked audit log and no messages were deleted by us in the last 24h (and probably even longer than that)

Go look in the PolyMC discord before someone purges it (as often happens)

Please document it here instead of directing people at a black hole of information. We basically never purge any messages.

Edit: Just checked audit log and no messages were deleted by us in the last 24h (and probably even longer than that)

Good point, Discord is hard to search. Here’s a giant screenshot. You may need to download it an open it manually because browsers may crunch it slightly in the preview. If you need a transcription for a screen reader please ask me, even if it’s years down the line. I’ll get an OCR and fix up the mistakes manually.

Basically, Lenny says some things in the #maintainers channel I can’t reply to, I tag him in #development, shit happens. You can see me answer essentially the same 2-3 questions this entire time and get increasingly more frustrated.

I’m Byte in this screenshot, Lenny’s Lenny, etc. woodiertexas took the screenshot.

Screenshot of Discord chat history