I read in the news that Peter Bourgon was officially excommunicated from Go “community spaces”. I’m curious if this community space, !golang@lemmy.ml, plans to comply with the ban. I think it would be useful to identify and support spaces that will not carry it out.
Why was he excommunicated?
I’m not sure, really. There is a conversation referenced where he seems like he wasn’t serious enough or polite enough in a chat room, but for the life of me I couldn’t see anything offensive in what he wrote. Those defending the ban are saying it’s not one conversation but a general pattern of behavior. One feels that an outright ban isn’t fair.
Idk seems legit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1exmMfbgVCz3dRXOOlfUCYeiXCuyNaMUnDogDv88HV4g/mobilebasic
But regardless of the validity of this ban, becoming known as a place where CoC violators can circumvent bans seems like a terrible idea.
If someone behaves like a pest, and is yeeted for it, what is the purpose of the ban? Generally speaking, the purpose of the ban is to force the objectionable behavior to stop, right?
If the banned person reflects on why they were banned, and truly changes their behavior, and thus stops being disruptive, then overturning the ban is, in my opinion, the correct course of action.
Not saying this person I’ve never heard of before deserves to be unbanned right now, obviously, but ostracizing someone for offenses committed elsewhere seems a bit much. They heave him from the official Golang stuff, fine, that’s the consequence of his actions. Can they really dictate that a person is permanently barred from everywhere? Seems like too much power.
More importantly, though, it seems counterproductive. Being fully yeeted from the entire universe means this person has no option but to dig in, in a “Me against The World” sort of mentality, with no option but to either stop participating socially, or ban evade (which is anti-social, too!).
By barring someone for ever, and everywhere, the problem is not resolved. He can never show improvement, because he has no way of doing so.
No, I say each corner has to deal with this sort of problem on their own, and while I think it warrants keeping a special eye on someone’s behavior when they join a new space, I don’t think it warrants barring them from doing so.
He’ll probably just join as “Schpeter Schbourgon” anyway. What then? Now the community he joined has no warning that he might deserve extra scrutiny, and he has no chance to redeem himself. Seems counterproductive to the actual goal of banning someone.
No idea who that is. Ban should be upheld in my opinion
