George Wright's Blog: Unacceptable behaviour

Unacceptable behaviour

gwright@kde.org (George Wright) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:38:00 +0100

I’m not usually one for jumping on flamewar bandwagons, but after seeing this, I felt I had to say something.

After having skim read the comments (there are a lot and most of them repeat each other), I did notice one disturbing thing; the people backing up the original post tend to be male, and the people objecting to the image are female. Or at least, that’s what I can muster from the usernames.

This is a horrendous rift in the community. There’s a big debate taking place on the original post’s comments section which basically involves two disjoint arguments, but I think that the majority of them are missing the point entirely.

Most of the supporters are simply pointing out that it’s legally fine, whereas the opposers are pointing out that morally it’s unacceptable. In the end, neither of these matter because whether you feel it’s acceptable or legal or not, this is pushing women away from the open source community and the comments in the post reflect this. If you don’t believe me, ask a few women how they feel about the post and I’m sure you’ll find the majority will find it offensive.

I’m not going to get involved with giving my opinion on the picture or the surrounding text as, quite frankly, the opinion isn’t what matters. How we perceive it is irrelevant; how the rest of the world perceives it is what really matters, and being a public blog that represents the community, this matters to us as a whole.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by anonymous

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:55:22 +0100

blauzahl, amusing to see how you find that disrespectful, yet how often you and the rest of kde girls do rather inappropriate comments on kde boys.

Or do you actually believe that being on a blog or a chat (like irc), gives you freedom to say anythign you’d not dare doing in front of that person?

Life is hard.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by Plato

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:15:41 +0100

@Ethelred: by raising the issue of “where do we draw the line” I was attempting to demonstrate to pvanhoof, Tristan et al. that there *is* a line to be drawn somewhere. They seemed to be working from the principle that anything goes on the internet.

I’m not claiming I know the answer, but just demonstrating that “we should be entirely free to do exactly what we want” isn’t a justified position.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by Ethelred

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:16:26 +0100

@Plato: You would be offended by a picture of a bloody, murdered baby on Planet Fedora, and you would want it to be removed if it appeared.* So where do we draw the “offensiveness” line and who decides?

I would turn this around and ask you Plato where do you suggest we should draw the line ?

It’s impossible to not offend anyone so how can any line be drawn anywhere ? This isn’t a “one size fits all” scenario. By allowing any one person to “draw the line” you turn that person into the sole arbiter of what the whole spectrum of opinions finds acceptable.

The world simply isn’t like that. If you find the original posting offensive to you, filter the feed or develop a thick skin. Don’t try to turn yourself into the defender of decency for the entire community.

And George, if I find your opinions offensive to me, should you similarly apologise and withdraw your blog post ? If not, why not ?

"Unacceptable behaviour" by Alban

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:42:10 +0100

@Plato : for your example of an hypothetical photo of a murdered child, assuming it would be gratuitous and not displayed as an illustration of a point (say, horrors of wars), I would most likely consider the poster as a jerk, and use my (limited) personal power to avoid further contact with the said individual, and I would probably set a filter in my agregator to avoid his/her posts.

And that’s it. @bochecha :

I never said we (individually) have to accept anything from anyone. But it’s our personal responsibility to filter by ourselves, with our consciences, and it’s certainly not a job for a Great Moderator that would arbitrarily decide for everybody what’s right or wrong.

Usenet works pretty well since ages on this principles. Each user can set his own bozo-list and fill it with whomever he decides not worthy of his time, and that’s that. It’s easy, it’s tested, it works.

So let’s get cracking on implementing client-side RSS filtering, and please, puh-leaase, keep it client-side, let people decide what’s good and what’s bad for themselves, not for the others.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by Plato

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:26:09 +0100

And by the way, “spoilt north american child” is a rather hilarious insult… You don’t know me, don’t try to guess who I am. :)

Indeed. They’re making up imaginary enemies.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by bochecha

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:22:35 +0100

@Tristan:

“We can not manage to not offend anyone, its just not gonna happen.” I know, and that’s precisely why I said I doubted we could fix this issue. But as long as we don’t fix it, we will have this kind of flames, some people will be unhappy, we will accuse each others of repulsing the women away from free software,…

“If you are offended by someone and gnome doesnt do anything about it, you probably wont blame gnome, that would be rediculous, its a community, not the person who offended you.” You can’t blame Gnome, that’s right, but don’t you have the right to not feel at ease in a community that let’s others offend you ?

“Now Im sorry but when people feel they need to be “Stood up for” by others when handling conflicts in a community, this denotes a serious problem in thier own upbringing” Did I say someone needs to be stood up for ? Nope. But when you are offended, having someone else saying “what you did is not right” (excuse me if that is not what “stand up for” means, I’m not a native english speaker) changes a lot. It makes you feel you’re not alone, which makes you feel that you are not the alien, being offended by something everyone else finds normal.

About your critics of the “sue-everyone-for-anything-society”, I have to say I totally agree with you. And this is definitely not something that should be desired for an internet community (or any other one). Did I say the contrary anywhere ?

And by the way, “spoilt north american child” is a rather hilarious insult… You don’t know me, don’t try to guess who I am. :)

"Unacceptable behaviour" by Plato

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:21:04 +0100

Your protestations about nudity make it clear that you don’t understand anything about my personal opinions on the matter. And with good reason: I haven’t mentioned them; they’re irrelevant to the matter at hand, as George initially mentioned.

The point is that quite a few people were offended by something, and expressed that, and quite a few other people, like you pvanhoof, jumped down their throats. That’s just not very nice.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by pvanhoof

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:10:04 +0100

I wouldn’t be offended, sometimes it’s good to show the atrocities of war (where this happens with babies) and parents who murdered their child.

It makes people aware that this happens on the planet.

For me if you’d frequently post pornography on your private blog then I think I’d be okay with the Planet GNOME maintainer politely asking to categorize those items, so that it’s easy not to have to show those on GNOME’s Planet.

I also think that filter would be appropriate and fair.

One single photo of an anonymous pair of legs where not even genitals are visible is not sufficient to go crazy about this.

It’s not even an incident worth discussing in my opinion.

I mean, I’m into Sauna. Sauna’s are mixed in Belgium. Children, males and females go there. I see naked people all the times. Children see naked moms and pops all the times. Both male children and female children. And it’s fine, seriously. And we, Belgians, are pretty sure that those children wont become rapists.

In fact, I believe those children will have a lot of respect for the female body. As they will have noticed that females are not all anorexia skinny with enormous breasts. And they will learn that some people do and some people don’t shave their genitals. Including men. And that this about the human body is like that, and that is like this.

There’s seriously nothing wrong with the human body and showing it is fine and absolutely not the act of a sexist.

That’s the POV where I am coming from. Now there are a bunch of people who are ‘offended’ by showing ‘oh my god’ a pair of anonymous legs.

Guys … it’s an overreaction.

Although I DO understand that in different cultures, different norms about female and male nudity are in effect. Like females not being allowed to show their hairs and neck in fanatic Muslim cultures.

Maybe in your culture showing the legs of a female is an amazing bad thing to do.

To be fair about the many Muslim people who walk in Belgian cities like Antwerp and Brussels: these people are extremely tolerant about our Western Belgian style of allowing females to show the beauty of their bodies.

Most (I do say most, not all) Belgians are equally tolerant about Muslim’s idea that they should cover their girlfriends and wives’s hair, neck and some even their entire face.

Both cultures are right, both cultures and styles respect females. Maybe one of the two is sometimes forcing young females to cover their face, but it’s not said that all of the females are against that culture.

What the people on these blog items have been trying to do is to force the GNOME community into choosing between fanaticism about whether or not our community members should be allowed to show any form of female nudity (the example being anonymous legs).

That’s the same as a Muslim telling me IN BELGIUM that I’m a rapist because I allow my girlfriend to wear sexy clothes at parties.

In fact, these people are not saying that. Yet they are often represented in Western media as not open to the freedoms that we cherish so much in our culture.

It’s a clear overreaction. It were f. anonymous legs. So what?!

"Unacceptable behaviour" by Plato

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:53:15 +0100

@Tristan: instead of assuming psychological weaknesses in other people, perhaps you could answer the following question:

You would be offended by a picture of a bloody, murdered baby on Planet Fedora, and you would want it to be removed if it appeared.*

So where do we draw the “offensiveness” line and who decides?

[* I’m assuming you would be offended. If you wouldn’t be offended, sorry for my incorrect assumption]

"Unacceptable behaviour" by pvanhoof

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:31:28 +0100

Agree with Tristan here

"Unacceptable behaviour" by Tristan

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:20:12 +0100

@bochecha: We can not manage to not offend anyone, its just not gonna happen.

If you are offended by someone and gnome doesnt do anything about it, you probably wont blame gnome, that would be rediculous, its a community, not the person who offended you.

If on the other hand you make a comment that somebody found offensive, and gnome somehow forced you to modify/censor your content, this is something that can offend you - this is the community that you are gracefully giving away free hours of labour - and now they are going to chalange your own personal view on your gnome blog site ? no no no…

Now Im sorry but when people feel they need to be “Stood up for” by others when handling conflicts in a community, this denotes a serious problem in thier own upbringing - This is a classic characteristic of a spoiled north american child, parents always scold one child when the other complains, children never learn to deal with their conflicts on their own, and what do you end up with ? a society of criticism where if anyone has a problem, they will make law suits and police reports, but god forbid living like civilized human beings and just asking the guy next door to just turn the music down a little please.

My god it makes me sick, lets not degenerate and make the same mistakes in our internet cultures.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by pvanhoof

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:03:36 +0100

I’ll paste a snippet from wikipedia for the lazy people:

This strategy is dependent on four conditions that has allowed it to become the most prevalent strategy for the prisoner’s dilemma:

Unless provoked, the agent will always cooperate
If provoked, the agent will retaliate
The agent is quick to forgive
The agent must have a good chance of competing against the opponent more than once.

…

Against a variety of alternative strategies, tit for tat was the most effective, winning in several annual automated tournaments against (generally far more complex) strategies created by teams of computer scientists, economists, and psychologists. Game theorists informally believed the strategy to be optimal (although no proof was presented).

"Unacceptable behaviour" by pvanhoof

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:48:08 +0100

@bochecha, You must not have gotten my point.

Because I did respond to that:

It’s a Darwinistic evolution process.

Read about Prisoner’s_dilemma on wikipedia if you want to learn to understand what I mean. It comes down to the game of Tit for tat that all animals, including humans, play with each other.

You can’t solve this, it solves itself.

You keep playing the strategy you are probably playing, which is tit for tat (not every human uses this for all the subjects he cares about, but most do).

Tit for tat between males and females is being played for thousands of years now.

A conservative point of view is not going to change that. It will just inject a few more players that play ‘defect’ more often.

Which basically means that we delay progress about this within our own community (because it takes some time before the ‘defect’ players die out).

Perhaps read a good book written by Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene). Don’t read the God Delusion, The Selfish Gene is his best book. It also explains this in high detail.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by bochecha

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:38:55 +0100

@pvanhoof: I think you didn’t quite get my point.

What I said is that no matter what you do, you will offend some people.

In the present case, if you show a pair of legs, you will offend some people (who might very well be as you said “hyper over-reacting”)

Then what happens. If you punish the person who did it, you will offend him and his supporters.

However, if you let it go, you will also offend people: the ones who were already offended, plus the ones who will fear that something they might find offending in the future happens and no one steps up for them.

More generally, there will always be a subset of people who will be offended. And how can we work together if we offend each other. If I insult you personally, will you accept to work with me in the comunity after that ? I doubt it, and that’s totally understandable.

As we all want to collaborate and build free software together, the question is “how can we manage to not offend anyone?”

I truly dare anyone to respond that. :-/

"Unacceptable behaviour" by pvanhoof

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:23:13 +0100

That’s very simple, actually:

By not dealing with it.

Which indeed means that we will miss the opportunity to work together with some people.

But those people have such a narrow point of view about other cultures and other’s moral values that it would probably be too hard to work together with them anyway.

I don’t believe females in general are like such people. I have worked together with a lot of females in the past and I am working together with females today. Females have their own male-unfriendly behaviour too. They are in fact very equal to us already and they can defend themselves just fine.

The people who complained about the two anonymous legs where just hyper overreacting. To the point that it damages females’s equality more than that posting the picture did in the first place.

Just let Darwinistic evolution do its work.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by bochecha

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:33:17 +0100

@Alban: you’re totally right.

Of course, apologizing is only worth if you mean it. And keeping hurting people and apologizing later can only leads to one conclusion: you don’t care at all about the people you are offending and only apologize to let them think you do.

In this case, people will realize you’re a jerk.

If, however, you notice you often have to apologize for the same thing, you might as well evolve (I didn’t say “evolve to something better!”), and maybe you can start understanding those people.

Of course, you can’t just be sorry for everything. But people can be offended by potentially anything.

That’s why in real life, social groups are auto-created by people who share not only the same interests and feelings to each other (friendship for example), but also the same values, morality. Those groups don’t face the same problem, because everyone in it will think that some behavior is (or isn’t) acceptable, as social groups in real life tend to be relatively small.

The problem here is that we are not in one of those groups. We are in a very large community, that is not create spontaneously upon people’s feelings to one another, but apon a common goal (free software in this case). Any one who has this same goal will be a part of this community, no matter what are his opinions / values.

Thus, usual rules of deeling with people and behaviors in a real life group don’t apply to those bigger communities. And I sincerely don’t see how we could content everyone:

those who wish to say all they want on their personal blog
those who can be hurt by a behavior totally normal for someone else
those who think a planet should contain only technical articles
those who are religiously devoted and won’t accept anything their religion blames from someone who doesn’t share the same faith …

Matthew Garret said something very clever about that: http://mjg59.livejournal.com/94420.html

In a community as big as ours, and with people so different, no matter what we choose to do (or to not do), we will always exclude / hurt a significant proportion.

I wish someone could be clever enough to find out how we could deal with that. :(

"Unacceptable behaviour" by Plato

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:11:15 +0100

@pvanhoof: Like I said before, not everyone who agrees with you is automatically a puritan, fanatic, conservative or even indeed a non-European. Stop making assumptions; they’re not helping your argument.

@bochecha: I entirely agree with you. Well put!

@Alban: Right, now we’re on to something:

If somebody had posted on his blog a picture of a murdered child covered in blood, and that got syndicated to Planet Fedora, I think that you, along with almost all the community would be offended, right, and ask Nicu for an apology? (Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I’m safe in assuming that would be too far for you).

In which case, the question follows:

Where do we draw the “offensiveness” line and who decides?

Please answer that. It’s the crux of the issue.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by Alban

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:37:15 +0100

@bochecha : while I understand your point of view, and GW’s by the same way, I don’t think it’s acceptable, lest we’d spend our life apologizing here and there, as there always will be someone offended in a way.

Where is the limit ? Should I apologize for eating meat because it offends vegetarians ? Should I apologize for posting a photo of my wife not covering her hair because it might shock some Muslim ? Should I apologize for a post where I’d unfortunately talk about me having lunch of fish on a Friday because it makes a Catholic uncomfortable ? Should I apologize to post a blue photo because it’s makes Windows BSOD veterans sick ?

The list goes on. Answer is, of course, no.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by bochecha

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:14:58 +0100

I definitely agree with those who say that what he did can be perceived as acceptable depending of the country you live in and the culture you this country has.

However, if I understood correctly, George Wright didn’t say he disagreed with that.

All he stated, and I think he is totally right, is that it happened to have offended some people.

Is it impossible to say “You see, in my culture, this is totally acceptable, so I still think what I did was not wrong (and I might do it again). However, I apologize to all the people that I offended.” ?

That’s just plain politeness. You don’t have to share the same moral values or agree on what is acceptable or not. But you have to assume that you might hurt some people and you can be sorry when that happens.

PS: don’t try to compare me to some “holy fanatic boy”. I didn’t say I found Nicu’s behavior unacceptable, and I could very well think what I stated and yet find his blog post the most natural thing in the world.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by pvanhoof

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:10:07 +0100

@Alban: indeed. It looks like there’s this anti-female thing growing in male’s brains.

As soon as they show a little bit of female beauty they all go ‘aaar arrh aaa! you showed a piece of flesh of a female body! aaaaar aach woaaah! You are a twat!’

Idiots.

If that’s what you think females want ‘to be respected’ then you seriously need to start having normal conversations with more than just the nuns that preach in the most conservative places of the U.S.

You can bullshit as much as you want about these fanatic anti-everything beliefs, the problem is that GNOME is done by mostly European software developers who have a much more open minded view on things like this than conservatives.

We don’t want this ‘nothing is allowed, else you are all twats’ bullshit.

If that’s the case, then fine in your eyes I will be a twat. Now please leave and let the serious people do their business.

Females and males are beautiful. The human body is beautiful. There’s nothing wrong about it. And the vast majority of females are NOT offended by showing an anonymous pair of legs.

Keep your extreme fanatic conservative views for yourself.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by Alban

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:59:18 +0100

What’s funny with all this neo-puritanism that creeps everywhere in the western world is that if Nicu or anyone else had made, say, a post about the latest war game, GTA game or any brutal killing simulation of the like (which I kinda like too, I must admit), nobody would have raised an eyebrow. But showing an anonymous pair of legs ! Gawwwwd, the shame, the shaaaaame !

"Unacceptable behaviour" by Plato

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:40:33 +0100

@Matieu:

this thing is completely pointless

What “thing”? Having a discussion? Why is having a discussion completely pointless?

you reaction is the same as some ultra conservative people

Err no. I don’t know exactly what the reaction of an “ultra conservative” would be, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be to (essentially) say: “Bad things happen. Let’s try to not let them happen again”.

If we start to censor the blogs

Who mentioned censorship? This is just about choosing what is and what is not appropriate to publish in a certain place. That’s not the same as censorship.

I personally find those blogs way more offensive and dangerous for the image of a community than a bad picture of somewhat nice pair of legs …

Some people objected a bit to the image. But the real the issue here is that a lot of community members have come out and said “We’re going to do this. We don’t care if you don’t like it. We’ll do whatever the hell we like, because you’re prudes, repressed, facists, censors, and we love freedom and we’re easy going.”

and that’s just not very nice really. (Mostly because it’s intolerant in itself – you don’t come across as freedom loving, you come across as twats).

"Unacceptable behaviour" by Mathieu

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:26:18 +0100

this thing is completely pointless, sure the picture was inapropriate to show up on a planet but you reaction is the same as some ultra conservative people who wonder how other will see their society because of porn magasine or the like. If we start to censor the blogs of a people because those will end up on a “planet” site for the reason it might give the community a bad reputation we are going down as a free and open community. Some people talk on their blog about their religious/political view and those end up on planet too and I personally find those blogs way more offensive and dangerous for the image of a community than a bad picture of somewhat nice pair of legs …

"Unacceptable behaviour" by Richard

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:39:49 +0100

@pvanhoof sigh Deliberate misinterpretation is a pretty low form of argument, you know…

In reply to a few of your points: “Looks like we have no incentive to change to your proposed culture then, right?”

Your “we” here are the people who are happy with the status quo. That’s fine, but you need to understand that there are people who aren’t in that group. I used to develop open source software, but for the most part I don’t any more, due to the attitude of your “culture”. Perhaps you keep more developers with your way than with mine. Perhaps you don’t. But I for one don’t want to be in a community which is run the way you want it to be run.

You say: “You for example portray the GNOME community as our employer. This is just blatantly wrong,”.

I said “(or some other public-facing organisation of whom I was a member)”. Did you miss this, or were you merely trying to make me look bad to somehow add weight to your side of the discourse? Also, how is this relevant to the discussion?

You say: “You portray GNOME as an entity that has a video camera installed in our living rooms. This is wrong, stupid and bullshit too.”

Oh really? You have your own private and personal blog, and GNOME is relaying it to the world under the “Planet GNOME” banner. Seems like an apt metaphor to me. This “living room” metaphor wasn’t one of mine… Please explain why you don’t think it’s an accurate characterization of the situation. You know, with big boy words rather than insults and evidence-free assertions that you are correct.

You say: “In fact are the kind of rules that you try to impose on the entire GNOME community the kind that not even a single one of the companies involved in GNOME impose on their employees”.

I find that very hard to believe. Certainly in the UK, no responsible employer will allow its employees to be intolerant of each others’ beliefs, or to be blatantly sexist in the workplace, for instance. An employee who insisted on taping an “upskirt” picture to his desk, visible to all who walked by, would get at the very least a verbal reprimand.

Also, I’m not trying to impose anything on anyone; I’m merely suggesting a possible alternative to the current farce that is the open source culture.

You say: “Right now the consensus seems to be that instead of censoring syndicated people, we are just going to trust them.”

Trust them with what? Do you mean trust them not to abuse their position as a syndicated blog? What, in your mind, would count as abuse here? Does the event in question count? Does anything?

You wrote: “In the end is loosing a contributor a bigger deal than pissing off somebody once per month or even per week.”

How many contributors do you think GNOME or open source in general has lost due to this “we don’t care if we piss people off” attitude you seem to be defending?

You wrote: “I too can make two LI tags in HTML where one is basically insulting communities that don’t follow your rules, and one is basically praising the ones that are. That doesn’t mean it’s either truth or meaningful.”

OK, I’ll be more direct. Friendly, tolerant, measured communities of software developers do exist. In my experience, they’re typically about 50% female. And more traditional, free-speech, don’t-care-about-peoples-feelings communities exist too. They’re typically >80% male. For me, that’s sufficient evidence that the latter is doing something wrong.

Here’s a suggestion: Sit in #haskell on freenode for a day, and observe the atmosphere. Do the same in ##c++. See if you can spot the difference.

You wrote: “May I advise you to indeed start a new community?”

Of course, your implication here is that they don’t already exist. They do, but they’re few and far between.

"Unacceptable behaviour" by pvanhoof

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:32:04 +0100

@Richard: That’s fine for you, I don’t want to be in the kind of political correct community you seem to want, which means we better each go our own way. For now GNOME fits my way just fine, and has been fitting a lot of people just fine. Looks like we have no incentive to change to your proposed culture then, right?

You for example portray the GNOME community as our employer. This is just blatantly wrong, inaccurate and bullshit. You portray GNOME as an entity that has a video camera installed in our living rooms. This is wrong, stupid and bullshit too.

I even predict that if GNOME would be like that, GNOME would probably only have five or six slaves left. Its culture would be completely different from what it is now and I sure wouldn’t want to work there. In fact are the kind of rules that you try to impose on the entire GNOME community the kind that not even a single one of the companies involved in GNOME impose on their employees. Probably because if they would, their employees would quit the job and start their own company or move to another employer.

As for censorship this would have to be discussed by the whole community, not decided by you nor any individual alone. Right now the consensus seems to be that instead of censoring syndicated people, we are just going to trust them. Notwithstanding a few discrepancies this turns out to work fine. In fact we seem to get larger amount of supporters who are pro the freedoms the syndicated people have on planet GNOME, than we get people (like you) who are against it.

I will in any case be a voice in the GNOME community who’ll ask not to turn GNOME into this kind of culture. I will also persuade the people involved in the planet of GNOME not to switch to censorship, or if the community would drastically grow to an amount where censorship is inevitable, that the act of censoring somebody’s blog item would have to be discussable by the whole community (the relevant people, contributors and foundation members). Not an individual.

In the end is loosing a contributor a bigger deal than pissing off somebody once per month or even per week. Censoring an individual is not something ‘nice’ to do, and you can be sure that a lot of developers wouldn’t want a culture where this is the case. The current maintainer of the planet of GNOME seems to understand this (and he’s among the people who’s not pro censorship. In fact has he allowed quite a lot of harsh criticism towards himself on our planet. It’s important that we can indeed do that, and can keep doing that).

I also question that your ‘rules’ change anything about any community. In the end are your rules all about ‘pretending to be better’. I think you are just ‘thinking’ that your ‘rules’ create a better environment. You sure have a lot of imagination, but that doesn’t tell me anything. Especially not that specifically your opinion is the truth.

I too can make two LI tags in HTML where one is basically insulting communities that don’t follow your rules, and one is basically praising the ones that are. That doesn’t mean it’s either truth or meaningful.

The way you portray the two is indeed rather ridiculous and insulting. The typical “I’m more holy than you guys” bullshit.

May I advise you to indeed start a new community?