Include statement addressing violent imagery

[rentalcustard]

Following #40, here's a draft amendment to the CoC. I'm very happy to take suggestions on the wording or where it should appear in the document. Specifically, I'm not sure that it's strictly harassment, as opposed to 'unacceptable behaviour', but it seemed to fit more naturally with the list of examples after "harassment includes" than after "unacceptable behaviours include".

[xamebax]

Thanks for opening this PR! It looks fine by me. The wording is a bit specific: could it just be "violence", without specifying against whom ("violence" against things is actually just vandalism... right?)? I'm not going to argue though, I am not a native.

[chastell]

Should this kind of PRs wait till the changes are applied to non-English version? (I’m more than happy to update the Polish translation once the English verbiage is decided upon, just wondering in general.)

[rentalcustard]

@xamebax fair point. I've updated the wording, what do you think?

@chastell I was wondering the same thing. Could someone from @rubyberlin advise?

[xamebax]

@rentalcustard Neat!

[PragTob]

Hi all,
thanks for the suggestion!
#39 needs to be solved before this (or any significant changes) can really get in. Sorry :(

The question about changes is to be addressed in #39 as well. My current idea would be to make a new branch until it is ready to become new master... or something like that.

Tobi

[eljojo]

I think the keyword inappropriate solves Florian's point very well.
The question is: when is it appropriate?

What about something along the lines of:

A note on depictions of Violence

In some cases, depictions of violence in public spaces (including slides) might be inappropriate. If you're interested in showing depictions of violence, please ask the organisers first.

does it sound like too much? cc @rentalcustard @skade

[rentalcustard]

We don't include similar qualifications for the sexual imagery exclusion we
already have. I also feel like the word 'inappropriate' gives plenty of
leeway to organisers.
On 6 Mar 2015 12:20, "José Tomás Albornoz" [email protected] wrote:

I think the keyword inappropriate solves Florian's point
#40 (comment)
very well.
The question is: when is it appropriate?

What about something along the lines of:
A note on depictions of Violence

In some cases, depictions of violence in public spaces (including slides)
might be inappropriate. If you're interested in showing depictions of
violence, please ask the organisers first.

does it sound like too much? cc @rentalcustard
https://github.com/rentalcustard @skade https://github.com/skade

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#45 (comment)
.

[skade]

You are right there. I still follow the notion that CoCs are a baseline anyways and organisers discretion is always a thing.

[eljojo]

I might be taking the discussion to a different level, but my point is, if we have to define it in the code of conduct (and if we need a code of conduct) is because certain things are not obvious.
If we use the word appropriate, it assumes that the attendee already knows what's appropriate for most people and what's not.

Of course, this are just my 2 cents :)

[skade]

Hi, I'd like to put this on the fast track. If there are no comments on this up to tonight, I'll vote for merging.

We should resolve this at least before rug-b, two month of time is an edge for me.

[PragTob]

totally with you there, also want to get this in before next week. I'll put in some time this evening before my project group - basically what I'd try is a version that is more general but references the display of violence and other unwanted content (similiar to what was suggested in the thread).

I'm not available for discussions during the day, though.

[chastell]

Is the English wording decided? If so, should we add the translations to this PR?

[PragTob]

No wording is not decided yet, sorry. I didn't have time yesterday evening (project group + rug::b organization) I'll try to have something up this evening.

[PragTob]

(and so evening becomes night)

I wrote up another proposal in #54 - please let me know what you think. I tired to make it more generally applicable (not "just" the display of violence) and include other thigns such as necessary trigger warnings if somehow this is the main content of a talk.

[skade]

I'd like to bump this.

[PragTob]

I'll try to get this done this weekend, I'll most likely merge tom's PR as I believe that is what everyone was most happy with.

[skade]

\o/
On 05 Jun 2015, at 12:12, Tobias Pfeiffer [email protected] wrote:

I'll try to get this done this weekend, I'll most likely merge tom's PR as I believe that is what everyone was most happy with.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[PragTob]

Hey,

so similar changes are included in #63 at the same place, what we have here is:

inappropriate use of nudity and/or sexual images in public spaces (including presentation slides); inappropriate depictions of violence in public spaces (including presentation slides);

vs.

inappropriate use of nudity, violent and/or sexual imagery;

(the part of presentations was pulled up a bit over there)

The changes are rather similar, the one in #63 is more succinct so I'd favor it. Then again, my favor for things was already against popular opinion couple of times :)

[rentalcustard]

I'm fine with #63 and would like to avoid another prolonged discussion before finally getting some form of change in.

[skade]

Hm, can we bring either #63 or this one to a close? I appreciate the effort to make all corners better, but this has been waiting for months and we promised fast movement.

[lauralindal]

Maybe some explanation why we pulled the presentation slide part up in #63 : It seemed to make more sense as there was already a "list" of where this unacceptable behavior could take place (online, etc). Whereas if it stayed in the second (current) paragraph, it would logically appear as if unacceptable behavior other than harrasing (so e.g. intimidation, derogatory speech etc) would be okay on presentation slides. I'm pretty sure that is not what we mean :)

[rentalcustard]

@lauralindal that makes sense to me!

[skade]

Merged and sorry for taking that long. We're going to amend it in a following PR, addressing "in public spaces", which we feel like introducing more confusion then clarification.