1. 1

  2. 1

    IIUIC, it looks like the CoC update was issued after @peterbourgon permanent ban from Go communities, cause of this complaint – Go CoC Report. IMHO it’s over reaction… or it’s just me having a thicker skin?

    1. 3

      I think the key element is (from the linked CoC):

      Persistent borderline behavior. Infractions may seem insignificant in isolation, but repeated over time they create a pattern of behavior that doesn’t match our Gopher Values and that adds up to substantial harm.

      We’ve had some people like this on Lobsters too: viewing most messages in isolation doesn’t give a clear “wow, this is terrible, please do something about this guy immediately!”-response, and is more of a “okay, not too great, but not too bad either 🤷”. But if you have this every day then it adds up, especially for regulars who at some point just get tired of it and leave. Most of these people are now banned on Lobsters by the way; the most recent one was @soc, but there have been a few others.

      These cases are really hard to deal with as a moderator; when exactly is it too much? And explaining it too other people is double hard because you can’t point to a single message or action; it’s more of a general atmosphere of unpleasantness spread out over many small incidents, many of which pass more or less unnoticed. I personally wouldn’t have made a CoC report over this incident in particular (I don’t really are much for “reporting someone” in general), but I did have a rather similar incident some years ago and I just stopped visiting the #general room in Gophers slack because of it 🤷

      In short, it’s not only about this particular incident. Plus, there are several ways to deal with such a conflict, even when you think it’s a load of nonsense. To say it wasn’t exactly handled with grace by Peter would be a bit of an understatement. I suspect that this part in particular was really the drop that overflowed the bucket.

      1. 3

        The ‘permanent’ part of that came from him evading a temporary ban and escalating on Twitter, so IMO it’s not really an overreaction. That being said, I’m very disappointed in both how this was handled (zero transparency from the CoC committee) and the general trend this sets up: the willingness and precedent of this committee to enforce post-hoc rules. It really does seem the CoC was updated directly as a result of this situation, which itself isn’t a problem (actually a good thing for this type of document to evolve), but it really seems that his initial ban came from a rule that was not published or part of the CoC at the time.