[CREATE] Code of Conduct

[Dave Crossland]

Hi Christoph!

On 20 January 2014 00:12, "Christoph Schäfer" <christoph-schaefer at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
> First of all, I want to let you know that cutting out your reply is due to two reasons:
> One, your message wasn't in plain text, which, I think, is still a standard for
> Open Source mailing lists (correct me if I am wrong).

Kindly, you are wrong. Where is this standard drafted and ratified?

Still, I'll use plain text to accommodate you.

> Second: You don't actually expect a rational discussion on the
> issues you raised, do you?

I'm sorry that this sounds like you're avoiding the issue.

You asked some very simple questions, which I'll repeat with my answers:

> > - Define who's being threatened.
>
> People with less privilege.
>
> > - Who's the threat?
>
> People with privilege.
>
> > - What's the threat?
>
> There are 2 classes of threats:
>
> 1. Soft threats - abuses of privilege
>
> 2. Hard threads - violence, and threats thereof.
>
> >- Who's the safeguard against threats?
>
> Instead of the de facto escalation chain being
>
> person -> friends -> cops
>
> an Event CoC provisions a incident response team which is known to everyone at the event, so the chain multiplies:
>
> person -> incident response team -> cops
> friends -> incident response team -> cops
> strangers -> incident response team -> cops
>
> The incident response team might span event regulars, to committee members, to organizers, to the location's regular staff, to the location's security staff.
>
> >- If a threat can't be identified with a single person
> > or a group,
>
> Since every human has the potential to cause an incident... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_%28comic_strip%29#.22We_have_met_the_enemy_and_he_is_us..22
>
> > please define what else should be
> > considered a threat and how a CoC can "help (to)
> > keep people safe" other than law enforcement
> > or civic common sense.

Would you mind answering me?

No answer so far.

As to my other questions, you cavalierly ignored them, so let me
repeat them, one by one:

1. I am curious if either of you would agree you were using an
ethnocentric definition of 'unsafe'?

2. Your meaning of 'safe' implies a 'hard threat' of violence. But
neither article describing incidents at events like LGM involve any
violence. Yet both use the word 'safe.' Why is that?

> I refuse to discuss this issue with you,

Ah, that's a pity. I honestly did think that you were seeking
understanding on this topic.

> because it would yield the same result as discussing the weaknesses
> of Psychoanalysis or Creationism with their respective supporters.
> It's futile, because critical questions only reinforce their dogmas.

If you have undergone some training in formal logic, you should also
be able to see where your trail of reasoning went off-rails (hint: at
the first ad hominem c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ).

Your Psychoanalysis example is pretty weak, btw.

> Getting back to LGM and a CoC: If your fundamentalist perception of
> society as a whole, your prejudices, your false assumptions, your dogmas
> and LGM in particular have any chance to become a foundation of an
> event, I suggest removing "Libre" and replace it with "Righteous"
> (RGM), because nothing of the original "Libre" will be left.

That sounds very righteous of you :)

-- 
Cheers
Dave