> Suddenly you'll be forced to either accept a code of conduct, or actively choose not to do so.
Funnily, it would allegedly require me to be active to not accept a code of conduct. I would disagree with that.
These code are nothing new and formerly often called something like netiquette or something. Some guidelines a community agreed upon and could be leveraged for common ground in cases of disagreement.
The difference to modern examples of COCs is certainly that they were mostly not mandated upon users. At that point, they become as interesting to users as terms of services. Somthing not on your mind you pay no attention to.
Since most COCs also include some drivel about strict enforcements, learning processes and other completely unrelated topics, I tend to just passively ignore them.
Many of these are also blatantly lying. What better way to champion inclusivity by banning behaviour deemed inconform? While even underlining that conformity is required? I would require an explaination here.
I wonder why people that tend to argue that everything is political are so keen on my and others conformity? What should I answer to that? Sorry, I cannot comply, I need to champion diversity?
> Many of these are also blatantly lying. What better way to champion inclusivity by banning behaviour deemed inconform? While even underlining that conformity is required? I would require an explaination here.
> it would allegedly require me to be active to not accept a code of conduct. I would disagree with that.
Once you reach a certain amount of attention, the question will be raised, and at that point not adopting an explicit CoC will be met with questions and seen as an active political stance. I don't know if I think that's fair - but it's the way it is.
> I wonder why people that tend to argue that everything is political are so keen on my and others conformity?
I'm not sure who you mean or which conformity you refer to here.
True, at that point it is a political issue. And I mean those that would take an issue with not adopting a ruleset that allegedly is mandatory, but isn't really. And yes, that would be my stance against this innocent question.
Funnily, it would allegedly require me to be active to not accept a code of conduct. I would disagree with that.
These code are nothing new and formerly often called something like netiquette or something. Some guidelines a community agreed upon and could be leveraged for common ground in cases of disagreement.
The difference to modern examples of COCs is certainly that they were mostly not mandated upon users. At that point, they become as interesting to users as terms of services. Somthing not on your mind you pay no attention to.
Since most COCs also include some drivel about strict enforcements, learning processes and other completely unrelated topics, I tend to just passively ignore them.
Many of these are also blatantly lying. What better way to champion inclusivity by banning behaviour deemed inconform? While even underlining that conformity is required? I would require an explaination here.
I wonder why people that tend to argue that everything is political are so keen on my and others conformity? What should I answer to that? Sorry, I cannot comply, I need to champion diversity?