Quoting: Purple Library Guy2) They want to evade the common meanings of something for political reasons. So suddenly if we talk about sexism or racism we get all these postmodernist, deconstructionist right wingers wanting to quibble about linguistic indeterminacy and, not generally having a background in English Literature, not doing it terribly well.

This. Right there. It's super funny how the last line of defense of these people always seems to come down to that. It's really laughable. There is no objective definition of "love" either, and yet everybody knows what it is. Likewise, the concept of racism/sexism/bigotry/etc is well enough established in the general population that it's really safe to assume that everybody has an understanding of what it is, even the racists themselves. Resorting to linguistic hair-splitting is just a cheap attempt by these people to shut down the other side's line of reasoning, and that's really all there is to it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: psyminBut I prefer to put my energies into communities that are welcoming of civil dissent and diversity of opinion

I am not sure what part of the CoC made you think that civil dissent and diversity of opinion isn't welcome. I didn't find any of that in there. And neither scaine nor myself have said anything to that extent, either. But yes, I do really not think that racism, misogyny, sexism, homophobia and bigotry qualify as "civil dissent" by any stretch of imagination, and neither are any of these things an "opinion". Being a pathetic moron isn't an "opinion". I guess that's really the thing where we don't agree on.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quickly, somebody take some snow shovels to hell. It must be bloody cold there right now!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPIf that misogynist in your project behaves just fine towards everyone in the project and the users and does a good job - what does it matter what views he holds privately?

I have never met a misogynist who was able to hide their crappy personality for long when there was a female around, but even IF they somehow could hold back in my project, I -still- don't want to work with a person who I know beyond reasonable doubt, is a douchebag. It's my right to chose who I work with. Again, you're more or less saying that voicing douchebag opinions is fine, but not wanting to be exposed to douchebags, is not. It's hypocrisy, because by doing that, you implicitly rank one side's freedom higher than the other.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPThe problem is that some people are calling for outright banning, blocking, locking up, etc. of anything not stricly adhering to their own opinions and views.

See, to me that's the issue: Some people demand for themselves to have the freedom to speak their mind wherever and whenever they want to, no matter how toxic/insulting their "opinion" is, but at the same time deny the Godot developers the freedom to chose who they want to work with. That's applied hypocrisy, right there.

Would I want to have a misogynist in a project I am leading? Absolutely NOT!!! Not even if their code was the best thing since sliced bread. I haul their sorry butt out of the door, period. And I find this the most natural thing on Earth, really.

It doesn't matter if people cannot on agree what exactly constitutes "toxic". The only thing that matters is whether or not the Godot maintainers find you toxic, and if they do for whatever reason, they have the right not to work with you. It's THEIR project and THEIR decision. Freedom goes both ways. You can't have the cake and eat it. People should actually be glad that they're clear and upfront about what sort of people aren't welcome in their project.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PatolaThanks, you nailed it, that's a big part of the problem: the current CoC allows that expulsion to happen. After all, it lists level of experience. So that's an open door to abuse and abuse legitimization. Even moderators who at first would not be inclined to do that expulsion might do it because it's now in the rules.

That's the point, the line you quoted does NOT provide a basis to ban people for saying they code like beginners. It allows to ban people that hurl discriminatory insults on others, not because they criticize somebody's work.

Quoting: PatolaToxic is not an informative world. Usually it is just meant to convey "bad" but is lacks any descriptive power. What is toxic? Histrionic words? Extreme points of view? Right-in-your face insults like "idiot"? Acid sarcasm? Left-wing views? Right-wing views? Victorian moralism? I've seen this word used with all these diverse meanings. Which depends heavily on the reader. So in fairness you should not use that word as a criteria to exclude people.

You love to tackle wording instead of meaning, I gather? Fine, I could have replaced "toxic people" with "rude/sexist/racist/bigot douchbags", but the first is so much shorter and to most people not after splitting hairs, is clear enough.

Yes, Kimyrielle, that is nice and I also like it that way in general -- some jokes were considered funny two decades ago to which no one would laugh today. But this is very different from excluding and expelling people from projects and public discourse.

Hurling personal insults at somebody isn't a "discourse".

Freedom of speech is not exactly a right (although in many contexts it is made as such), it is more a philosophic doctrine, something to aspire to. It should guide not only public policy but also private group spaces, interconnected communities and so on. That's what makes me sad, it is distorted to the extreme in today's hysteric ideologies which try to suppress each another instead of instilling debate. And by the way, disagreeing to an insult is also quite different from expelling the messenger and mobs sabotaging its job opportunities and private life.

One of the most difficult concepts of free speech is that one should be free from reprisals for his/her opinions, which many people wrongly understand to be free of consequences (which is impossible and absurd), and that leads them to reject free speech altogether.

If you are into splitting hairs again, might as well have pointed out that "free speech" doesn't even apply to the interaction of private entities. It's a constitutional right governing interactions between citizens and their government, and that ONLY.

Which brings me to the point how utterly pointless your and the other posters ranting about the CoC really is. There are exactly two reasons why somebody might be opposed to it:

First, they defend people being toxi...errm, pardon me...rude/sexist/racist/bigot douchebags. In which case I will just go ahead and rest my case with the stating the obvious that the people causing the problem would of course be opposed to the solution to the problem.

Second, they are afraid of the CoC being "abused" to ban harmless innocent contributors. Now, while I can sympathize with being opposed to overreaching regulations, it's still 100% pointless to throw a hissy-fit over the CoC, because any FOSS project can ban any person at any time for any reason anyway. I don't get why some people think by donating some code they magically become co-owners of that project. They don't. Godot Engine belongs to the guys that started it. It's THEIR project. You don't own anything, except the code that, by donating it to a MIT licensed project, you have open-sourced anyway. They are under no obligation to work with you, and even if you contributed code, they can decide at any point to stop working with you. All the CoC does is clarifying some conditions that would make the project owners want to stop working with you.

You don't like their rules? Start your own project!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Patola"level of experience, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, language proficiency, age, political orientation, nationality, religion, or other similar characteristics..." -- anything can be shoehorned into being "harassment" when being so broad, and there is even a broadening clause in the end to ensure that.

ANYTHING, huh?

Oh, well, if that's the case try to point out to me how even a rather confrontational piece of less-than-constructive criticism like e.g. "Your latest pull request looks like a total beginner to coding wrote it" could lead to CoC action using above clause. You can't use it for that. Now, if you wrote instead "Your latest pull request looks like a fat girl wrote it", you could. See the difference? At all? If not, you're a part of the problem, I am afraid.

Quoting: PatolaAnd that person might be expelled for doing it elsewhere ("...either publicly or privately.")?

That's your interpretation. To me, it rather reads, either publicly (within our community), or privately (within our community). Admittedly, they should have be clearer if a CoC violation could happen when a community member attacks another on a 3rd party platform, etc.

Quoting: PatolaThere are indeed forbidden opinions today.

That's utter nonsense. There is a certain group of toxic people that resent that their toxic statements are no longer left standing without receiving dissent for them. In 1999, if you insulted a female player in a PvP game the rest of the male gang there would giggle. In 2019, at least some of the people there will call out for being a douchebag. There is no such thing as things you can't say. But there is no right to yell unintelligent garbage out to the world and expect not to receive negative comments for it. That's in the end what people mean when they complain there is no freedom of speech anymore. They mean THEIR freedom of speech and theirs ONLY. "I have the right to insult you, but no, you can't disagree with me, because free speech is for me only!!!"

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: psyminI'm more concerned about non-contributors finding a contributor's Facebook page and using the contributor's personal opinions and personal habits as a reason to evict them from the community.

I am pretty sure if they start over-policing the CoC in places where it by no sane reason ever should reach, there will sufficient backlash by the community at large to make it stop. I do agree that it would have been better to define clear limits to where and what the CoC will apply, but I can understand that they wanted to give themselves a little leeway to be able to act when they feel it's needed.

Honestly, I wish "Don't be a jerk!" would be the only CoC humanity ever needed, but as we all know there is no much toxicity around that we need sufficient tools to snuff it out.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Wait, you can run Origin in Proton? I had no idea! Is there a guide for this, people could point me to? I used to run it in Lutris, but their installer has been broken for months now.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam DaweSlow and steady may well win the race, it's better Valve/CodeWeavers carefully review the new versions before just pushing them out though. Let them all get more testing in the wild, then pull them in when ready.

Agreed! I'd rather have them skip some WINE releases in exchange for steady, stable progress. Lately I've had the first time when a new Proton release broke a game that used to run flawlessly with it (Star Trek Online). It still works with Proton 4.2, so it's definitely a problem with the new Proton and not the game.

View this comment - View article - View full comments