{"thread":{"id":"53692","subject":"Re: git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion","startedAt":"2020-06-16T20:52:16Z","lastAt":"2020-06-16T22:03:29Z","messageCount":2,"participants":["Kaue Doretto Grecchi","Jeff King"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"399937","messageId":"CAMWmj-xR7f_F5HMuEDyn2L0N7pdBWmyzin6Yk=D048H7TDXEPg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53692","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Re: git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion","fromName":"Kaue Doretto Grecchi","fromEmail":"kauedg@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T20:52:02Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T20:52:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"kauedg@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"> It does avoid being directly disrespectful and thus might not technically violate the code of conduct\n\nThe repo's code of conduct (Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct) states that:\n\n> Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:\n> [...]\n> Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks\n> Public or private harassment\n\nSo it does violate the CoC and should have been removed like other\ncomments. But it was not only kept there, it was not disputed by the\nadmins even after they deleted 4 other messages following his. I\npersonally think it says something about their bias and this should be\naddressed, even if we don't consider the issue's motivations.\n\n> Just my own guess here, but I think calling others' arguments \"dull\n> and kind of childish\" is not civil or respectful, and thus that you\n> missed the reasons for your being blocked.\n\nStating that *an argument* is \"dull and kind of childish\" does not\nmean I think the same about who wrote it. I was making arguments, the\nuser stated that *I* would be wary of using the word \"cock\" in one of\nmy projects' name as if I was not mature enough. It's a personal,\ndisrespectful statement that tried to insult and shame me as immature.\nFrom my point of view I was blocking for defending myself while trying\nto address the issue's reasoning.\n\nBut for the sake of arguing, let's say I did deserve the block. Why\nwas it made *after* a whole lot of other commentaries and negative\nvotes on the proposal rather than at the moment it was made? Because\nthe block has nothing to do with the comment itself nor a will to\nenforce the CoC.\n"},{"id":"399940","messageId":"20200616220326.GB685107@coredump.intra.peff.net","threadId":"53692","inReplyTo":"CAMWmj-xR7f_F5HMuEDyn2L0N7pdBWmyzin6Yk=D048H7TDXEPg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2020-06-16T22:03:26Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T22:03:29Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 05:52:02PM -0300, Kaue Doretto Grecchi wrote:\n\n> > Just my own guess here, but I think calling others' arguments \"dull\n> > and kind of childish\" is not civil or respectful, and thus that you\n> > missed the reasons for your being blocked.\n> \n> Stating that *an argument* is \"dull and kind of childish\" does not\n> mean I think the same about who wrote it.\n\nJust to be clear, I think saying something like \"your argument is\nstupid\", even though it does not attack the person _directly_, is still\nnot up to the level of communication I'd hope in our community. In\nparticular:\n\n  - it's unconstructive; say what you don't like about the argument in a\n    way that can move the discussion forward.\n\n  - it's needlessly inflammatory\n\n> I was making arguments, the\n> user stated that *I* would be wary of using the word \"cock\" in one of\n> my projects' name as if I was not mature enough.\n\nI didn't read the original comment that way at all. I read it as a\nresponse to the notion that words have different meanings in different\ncontexts.  I.e., that while nobody is likely to think the original\nwriter using \"cock\" meant the male anatomy and not the bird, the word\ncarries enough connotations that one might be careful of using it. Even\nthough the reader can tell you meant one and not the other, it often\nputs the image of the other in their mind before they get to that point.\n\nCertainly I think one could argue how often this is or isn't the case\nfor \"master\", or what responsibility writers have to avoid this\nsituation, etc, which might be more constructive directions (though they\nalso risk hitting unconstructive dead-ends on base assumptions, it can\nsometimes be useful to play out the arguments and get a better\nunderstanding).\n\n> It's a personal,\n> disrespectful statement that tried to insult and shame me as immature.\n> From my point of view I was blocking for defending myself while trying\n> to address the issue's reasoning.\n\nI'm sympathetic to that, if that's how you interpreted the comment. In\nsuch a case I find it can sometimes be helpful to explain how you\nperceived the comment. That can help clear up misunderstandings. Or if\nyou did interpret their view correctly, maybe expose the other side more\nclearly as a jerk, at which point you're probably better off saying\n\"please stop being a jerk\" and disengaging (again, in my experience).\n\nThat's not always easy, of course.\n\n> But for the sake of arguing, let's say I did deserve the block. Why\n> was it made *after* a whole lot of other commentaries and negative\n> votes on the proposal rather than at the moment it was made? Because\n> the block has nothing to do with the comment itself nor a will to\n> enforce the CoC.\n\nI'm not sure what you're asking here. Maintainers of projects aren't\nreading comments in real-time. Nor is their sole job policing comments.\nIt seems reasonable to me that they might not realize action needs to be\ntaken in a thread until the thread as a whole has started moving in an\nunproductive direction. At which point it may be worth marking any\ncommunication in the thread that isn't up to the project's standard.\n\nBut perhaps your question was purely rhetorical in order to make the\nfinal sentence. I don't agree with the conclusion in your answer,\nthough.\n\n-Peff\n"}]}