[znpy]

Completely bogus argument. The core of the issue is that non-technical topics were brought into technical environments, creating heaps of drama, and then the concept of code of conduct was created to try and stir that drama.

It’s basically addressing the symptoms rather than curing the disease: if you want to do foss, you have to accept you might be collaborating with somebody whose ideas are completely antithetical to yours. Any other approach is not free, and is not open.

[unsungNovelty]

> Completely bogus argument. The core of the issue is that non-technical topics were brought into technical environments, creating heaps of drama, and then the concept of code of conduct was created to try and stir that drama.

Yes. Looks like I didn't clarify my point in the main post. I don't think CoC is helping anyone. It is better to be without it.

I was talking about how CoC's was being applied at present and how it was first introduced. If you've been around since at least early 2000s with flamewars, then you know why CoC came about. It was not a pretty sight. A lot of communities were like 4chan. Unfiltered and with people getting banned when nobody is backing down from an argument. I wasn't rallying for CoC to be made better. But I understand where it came from at the same time.

[znpy]

> then you know why CoC came about

I've been on the Internet when flamewars were common, and CoC weren't a thing yet.

CoC (along with committees) are a very recent thing. They weren't introduced until certain people started exercising moral blackmail onto projects, people and organizations by pushing political topics into technical discussions.

Back in the days of flamewars there were a few rules and pretty much just moderators to enforce them.

Rules were simple, you were usually banned if your messages were either not civil (and here again, the bar was high), if your contributions were comically off-topic or if you spammed the forum/newsgroup/mailing list.