Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
Posted Oct 24, 2018 9:12 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines by interalia
Parent article: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
> aggressively doesn't follow such guidelines
That's kinda a separate topic, rather than a real test.
The point of these guidelines is to reduce the frequency of arriving at the situation where a contributor becomes or is remaining aggressive.
It's like defensive driving. You can prevent other people from causing accidents, and fewer accidents is good for you and everyone. Punishing bad drivers is a related but separate topic.
Posted Oct 24, 2018 13:51 UTC (Wed)
by Tara_Li (guest, #26706)
[Link] (5 responses)
I don't quite agree. There's a point where defensive driving starts *rewarding* the bad drivers - that nothing ever happens just encourages them to become worse drivers.
Posted Oct 25, 2018 0:35 UTC (Thu)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link] (4 responses)
That assumes that getting into accidents is the only form of feedback bad drivers get. But that isn't the case. We have traffic police whose job it is to hand out tickets to bad drivers; they can even lose their license for repeated and/or severe violations. That's the point of the "Punishing bad drivers is a related but separate topic" comment. By separating the jobs of accident avoidance and punishing bad driving, we get the benefits of defensive driving while minimizing the risk that bad drivers will be rewarded for their misdeeds.
Translating back into codes of conduct, this suggests the rules need to come in two parts. One part are guidelines like the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines that try to encourage best practices so people who want to avoid confrontation don't create it inadvertently. The other part are hard rules about what is absolutely unacceptable and will result in some kind of punishment for violators. There can and should be a big gray area between following best practices and getting in trouble for breaking the rules, just as there's a big gray area between being a careful defensive driver and getting a ticket.
Posted Oct 26, 2018 9:11 UTC (Fri)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 1, 2018 22:45 UTC (Thu)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 14, 2018 9:34 UTC (Wed)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link]
Posted Nov 9, 2018 17:35 UTC (Fri)
by em-bee (guest, #117037)
[Link]
greetings, eMBee.
Posted Oct 24, 2018 23:49 UTC (Wed)
by interalia (subscriber, #26615)
[Link]
Yes, if you read again that's pretty much how I started my comment:
>> Well, writing the "here is how to do it better" is excellent, and I take the point that you want to nudge things before they get bad.
Overall I was responding to the people who were saying this document is the "best of its kind" they have seen, probably because the tone is more encouraging good than punishing bad (the carrot vs the stick). I was just saying that encouraging good is fine, but since it's just guidelines rather than an actual conduct policy then the difficulty comes if someone aggressively ignores it, and there is no procedure/policy for blocking that person.
Well, other than "I'm the BDFL and I'm booting you out of here" I suppose, as anselm suggested.
Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
> causing accidents, and fewer accidents is good for you and
> everyone. Punishing bad drivers is a related but separate topic.
Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
There's a point where defensive driving starts *rewarding* the bad drivers - that nothing ever happens just encourages them to become worse drivers.
Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
