--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:53 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:
Yes, I consider it closed. I wanted a CoC to make sure we can avoid disputes, so there’s no point in having one now.
ok so i'm happy to continue this, because this is a different example from the others. statement to be evaluated:
"a code of conduct will help make sure that disputes are avoided".
the rest of the sentence is logically inconsistent, so i'm going to ignore it. as in: i don't see the connection - let me know if you feel it's relevant.
so. scenario (1) there's a code of conduct and a dispute comes up (because somebody violates the "code of conduct"). how then is it possible to *avoid* such a dispute arising... just because of the *existence* of the "code of conduct"? if someone REALLY wants to start a dispute, first thing that they'll do is: IGNORE the "code of conduct"!
therefore, the "dispute" still will occur, therefore it still has to be dealt with, therefore, logically, the *existence* of a "code of conduct" has absolutely nothing to do with "avoiding disputes".
scenario (2) there's no code of conduct, there's nothing in place (at all) that's well-defined. in this instance, anybody who REALLY WANTS to create a "dispute" will just pick a fight, no matter what.
thus, their DESIRE to create a "dispute" has absolutely nothing to with the EXISTENCE or otherwise of a "code of conduct".
scenario (3) there's the "bill of ethics" in place and a dispute comes up. someone ignores _that_ and says something which is sufficiently offensive that it causes a massive distraction, in direct violation of the goal of "fulfilling the EOMA68 goals in strict-ethical fashion". is the "bill of ethics" sufficient to deal with this disruption? yes it is (as demonstrated by the two examples given in the previous message).
we still know that the "dispute" will still occur, we can't avoid *not* to deal with disputes, we might as well be ready *to* deal with them (because they are part of entropy), and the "bill of ethics" is (as best can be assessed so far) a reasonable framework on which to begin dealing with such. so again, there is no problem.
so scenario (1) and scenario (2) demonstrate that the desire to have a CoC so as to "avoid disputes" is logically inconsistent, i.e. the existence of a CoC or otherwise has absolutely no bearing on the desire to ensure that disputes are avoided.
with the ability to *assess* the acceptability of *any* form of "conduct" being *derived* from the "Bill of Ethics", we can logically see that there is absolutely no need for a CoC. as yet there have been no examples presented which contradict that, we go with.... "The Bill of Ethics".
l.