[20:10] <cluelessperson> I'm here because someone suggested this was the place to discuss this interesting conversation. :P
[20:12] <cluelessperson> While I understand the want for a productive decorum, I don't view a community as particularly "open", "shared", or "welcome" if it acts to prevent users from acting well, human.
[20:12] <cluelessperson> I believe in being respectful towards people in general, but also that we are human and not coldly calculating machines.
[20:13] <CarlFK> cluelessperson:  feel free to propose changes to the Guidelines
[20:17] <cluelessperson> CarlFK, I don't know if I have any valid suggestions formed yet.  That's why I wanted to discuss the ethics. :P
[20:17] <cluelessperson> On one end, you are right to maintain a decorum, to correct people's language.
[20:18] <cluelessperson> On the other end, people should be free, as long as that freedom does not "hurt" others.
[20:19] <hggdh> not quite so: what is seen as freedom for some can bee seen differently to others. This is why you have the guidelines, and CoC (which you should now have the links to)
[20:20] <cluelessperson> hggdh, I think many people are poor with communication, and often lack the ability to separate their ego/internal bias from reality.  (not that I'm pointing at any of you here, ha)
[20:20] <hggdh> the whole idea of a code of conduct (and guidelines) is to make clear what a community accepts or not. It may not match your idea, or somebody else's idea of freedom, or CoC, or whatever else; but it is how that community works
[20:21] <hggdh> I understand, and this is why we try to steer you to the right path (as far as the #ubuntu* namespace/community is concerned)
[20:21] <cluelessperson> hggdh, well, that's also what I mean.  You say "community", but those guidelines are often written by a single person somewhere near the top.
[20:23] <el> those guidelines have been broadly edited by quite a few people over the past decade.
[20:23] <hggdh> not the case here. Both the CoC and guidelines have been worked on by many different people
[20:23] <el> some of whom were not 'near the top'.
[20:23] <cluelessperson> hggdh, This is why I enjoy this sort of conversation so much.  It's also an authoritative analysis of conducting a society.   :P
[20:23] <cluelessperson> ha, ignorance on my part!
[20:24] <el> the language clause is complicated, because if we describe exceptions then people will put in effort to fit them in a way that matches the wording not the spirit of the rule.
[20:25] <el> at the same time, sometimes people will cite the rule in terms of the wording not the spirit of it. this is probably one of those cases. i'd have preferred if it hadn't been cited, but doing so was technically valid.
[20:25] <cluelessperson> el, I have several communities I administrate (not that I mean to claim any authority)
[20:26] <cluelessperson> While I often establish guidelines, they're usually frames as an abstract of "attempting" to maintain a productive atmosphere.
[20:27] <el> indeed, and people are free to criticize
[20:27] <cluelessperson> el, Yes, that's a perfect example.  "well, technically I am following the rules"  "but you're also purposely being rude"
[20:29] <el> in this case you're asking for us to censor someone who spoke based on their correct interpretation of a rule that we find necessary to have in its current form but which was probably not cited in the most appropriate circumstance.
[20:29] <CarlFK> cluelessperson:  for some foo about where things come from:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam#Our_work
[20:34] <cluelessperson> btw, I largely agree with your work here, and it's very nice.
[20:34] <cluelessperson> I just find the conversation interesting, and applicable to other contexts.  I'm not meaning to be critical of your work. xD
[20:37] <cluelessperson> hm.  I have much about it I want to discuss, but I don't want to imply that my thoughts pertain to any perceived abuses on your parts. xD
[20:37] <cluelessperson> So this probably isn't the place. :)
[20:37] <cluelessperson> Do you know of a place better suited for this sort of conversation?
[20:39] <el> the main thing is, nobody's going to ban over the use of "wtf" unless it becomes excessive, and actual ops will give warnings before going that far for something that's not urgent. the rule's there to set expectations, and this also means that people will have those expectations and some will be more nitpicky about rules than others. doesn't mean you can ignore them or be rude to them, and as was already
[20:39] <el> stated an expectation against using cusswords should not change the content of your speech and is thus not actual censorship.
[20:41] <el> as much as you'd like to discuss it, i'm not keen on doing so further because i don't feel like being quoted out of context.
[20:44] <cluelessperson> sure.
[20:44] <cluelessperson> Thanks regardless. :)