This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
"Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, sexual images, deliberate intimidation, stalking, sustained disruption of discussions or other events, and unwelcome sexual attention."
This doesn't fit too well on online communities where gender, sexual orientation, and other physical information are absent most of the time.
On communities like clojurians, most harassments would be male-to-male and not involve any sexual dimension.
That said, unwelcome sexual attention is not ok, but I think the majority of harassments here is not handled well by the current form of CoC.
How would such abusive language as "It takes 3 months for XX to do a simple thing because it takes 3 months for XX to make a simple decision." be treated? The current CoC doesn't seem to catch this kind of mockery very well.
"We do not tolerate harassment of Slack participants in any form." & "Harassment includes ..."
Sorry for spamming the channel, but I was burned by trolls on IRC before. So, I'm wary.
I suggest "Harassments include" -> "Harassments include but are not limited to", though.
> This doesn't fit too well on online communities where gender, sexual orientation, and other physical information are absent most of the time. Such communities probably only exist in your imagination. People have identities, and often attach them to their handle. Even if gender and orientation are never a direct topic, they can easily become a target for motivated abusers. > On communities like clojurians, most harassments would be male-to-male and not involve any sexual dimension. I'm not sure how you've drawn either of these conclusions. Even if the first is true, other harassment should not be tolerated, and stressing male-male harassment specifically seems inappropriate. The second seems inappropriately heteronormative. > I prefer gender-neutral CoC. The part you quoted is gender-neutral. Your reaction to it isn't. > I surmise it came from a feminist point of view. Are you kidding?
It seems I have to correct my message. Most programmers are men for some reasons, so statistically, most harassments would be male-to-male, but male-to-male harassments occurring in programming industry don't involve sexual elements.
In programming channels, most harassments involve condescending, prompting others to pass turing tests, and debasing others' intellectual abilities.
I didn't mean to say CoC should focus specifically on male-to-male harassments. Rather, it lacks focus on the dynamics of trollish behaviors.
Trolls hardly ever stick to topic, and they use confrontational language, and they fake hyper-sensitivity to perceived insults. Of course, they fail to use sound arguments.
CoC seems to focus more on prohibiting the specific offensive means by which trolls attack people(sexism, racism, etc) than on how trolls achieve their ends by utilizing various means which include, but are not limited to, sexism, racism, etc. Trolls will use whatever means they have available to attack people and display power. This means trolls are opportunistic about choosing the means by which to attack people.
Oh please, not the CoC business again. It makes people start using made up words like heteronormative
Honestly, the wording of this CoC is pretty gender-neutral and sane, I'm not sure where you see "feminist" in it. Yes, it does include types of harassment than can be inter-sexual, but what is wrong with including what are valid examples of harassment?
If it would have been written from a feminist PoV if it used more made up thing like pronouns, punching up, listen & believe, or inclusivity. I've honestly seen a discussion on CoC for some project on Github where people explicitly argued harassment can only come from majority towards minority, and complaints in the reverse are invalid, which is such a bullshit.
In comparison to that this CoC is pretty sane and even handed (though last time when the CoC was brought up before I've seen people take it and start bending it towards things like inclusivity and whatnot) and I would like it to stay that way. We should be sane and civil, because we are sane and civil and not because we are afraid of someone will sic CoC on us because they felt offended.
Besides I think that
> We do not tolerate harassment of Slack participants in any form
> deliberate intimidation, (...) sustained disruption of discussions
cover what you're describing quite well, but I can see the value of adding a clause re: trolling as well.
Well, if for some reason that's hurtful for you, then sorry, just stating my point of view. And like I say, I can understand your stance that adding such a clause might make sense.
@jaen: bit of a tangent, but given that “heteronormative” appears in both OED and Merriam-Webster, labeling it as a made-up word seems a bit silly.
@eggsyntax: well, take a look at those additions to the dictionary - http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/june-2015-update/new-words-list-june-2015/ - and tell me words like shizzle, twitterati or twerking are not made up, and yet they are included. Yes, language is evolving, but it is a bit silly to say that dictionary inclusion is the only factor indicative of whether a word should be treated seriously or not in my opinion. But yes, I can concede that me calling this word "made up" is more indicative of my attitude to the topic than it's ontological status.