comradekingu
commented
2 years ago @CorruptedArk What exactly is in place when it is stated a "pledge" has been taken by contributors? I care enough to check beforehand, because not assuming on part of others matters to me. I try not to, and wrote that specifically to avoid it, just as there could be some reason to escalate conflict beyond the control of concerned individuals by design.
Why should I lead people to believe I don't find that sort of authoritarianism objectionable? Outside of a good argument argument of being very poorly written, the restrictions on community are actually required. I find those terms egregious, additionally because the very ecosystem it is built on not only derides professionalism above all else, but because anti-meritocracy never did work in that scope. To no surprise the author has made a non-libre licensing scheme to boot. When a statedly political document bans politics backed by a document requiring ultimate secrecy, and censorship, atop itself mattering more than anyone involved, it paints a similar departure from functioning community or values thereof. The break from intent is anti-human, but still lends itself to interpret "harassment" outside of a legal system that doesn't.
The list goes on. It is all so exasperating.
I am all about giving fair warning and it being in your power even not to. You did read the GitHub counterpart and found that insufficient I take it? Hoping to see an argument for why stating behavior somehow results in desired outcomes. Secondary to law it seems not to deliver, so far. I'll put up unwritten rules everywhere if that is the case, because it seems so indolent we should come to have a term for it, without realizing its potential. Especially social-justice efforts in a forever bloated document next to nobody actually reads seems unexpl… The absolute disasters in its wake have to be better than the historical instrumentation of "code of conduct". No? But rosy words, right? Nevermind pathology or content. Let's have people wanting to remember their medicine be met with the non-normalization of having their non-immutable characteristics drawn to the foray first and foremost. Normalization is for people we can't single out for no good reason, especially if it should be irrelevant to our argument. (I am being (ironically) inclusive here, because in this world arguments are made on part of all.) Disregard all that clinical psychology inconvenience. Look to the communities of its origin and rule to find all matters cognitive and practical solved, surely?
It all hinges on the premise that one is anti-social enough to carry out behavior warranting mention only not when it also means disobeying it in written form. This sort of logic I don't want to fool anyone with, even in the aggregate, because it instills false confidence in vulnerable individuals. To that effect, the 2.0 version and beyond have "project maintainers" replaced with "community leaders", and states behavior down to an abject representation of satire.
You are asking for translations from people that needn't even know about any of it, or were even given actual choice or say in the matter. It shouldn't be down to me willing to contribute, but rather being able to. Rest assured — in good conscience I cannot, and won't.
CorruptedArk
Happy to translate the project if this is merged :)