The team behind the free and open source game engine, Godot Engine, have another progress report to share on Vulkan support coming to Godot Engine 4.0. Plus, they have a new Code of Conduct.
With the 4.0 update that brings in Vulkan, it's also going to give developers a much more powerful Global Illumination system. Godot's support for it landed in the 3.0 release but they said it was quite limited, so they've reworked it. The new system offers much better performance, 100% real-time lighting, voxel ambient occlusion, support for dynamic objects, multiple bounce lighting and more to come.
Thanks to all of this, Godot Engine 4.0 will include "a fast and complete solution for real-time global illumination, in an easy to use package" which certainly will help those making 3D games. A very exciting advancement for the open source game engine.
As for the Code of Conduct, it all sounds pretty sane. They expect contributors to remain polite and be welcoming to all regardless of race, ethnicity, language proficiency, age and so on.
See more on the official Godot Engine website.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
Someone who is part of the Godot community should never, as part of the community, have to defend their right to exist to another community member. Ideally this would never be necessary but our CoC can only do so much. This type of conversation is indeed simply not tolerated. It is unfair to expect any Godot contributor to possibly have to defend their identity to someone who questions it. This adds a barrier to entry that we simply do not want to exist.
It is not possible to make a strict set of rules about human behavior. Trying to do so would be foolish. The guidelines are examples of things that are not acceptable and can be referred to by moderators as reason for removal from the community. The thing you seem to be asking for: A stricter set of rules, is not actually achievable.
The rules are applied by real humans, as we state in our CoC. The scenario you describe won't happen. However if someone uses Twitter DMs to harass another Godot contributor they may get removed from Godot community platforms.
If you have a party at your house and after the party some friend of friend finds the Facebook page of a friend of yours. This person then proceeds to harass your friend over Facebook, would you invite them back to your house only because the harassment didn't happen in your house?
Brendan was removed from a leadership position because his private donations were to causes that directly tried to negatively impact a large number of Mozilla employees. This is an extraordinary situation and not a very useful example in the context of the Godot Code of Conduct.
Why do you think there are so many checkboxes to expel anyone from the community? Because it increases the odds of seeming reasonable. "level of experience, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, language proficiency, age, political orientation, nationality, religion, or other similar characteristics..." -- anything can be shoehorned into being "harassment" when being so broad, and there is even a broadening clause in the end to ensure that.
It is not possible to make a strict set of rules about human behavior. Trying to do so would be foolish. The guidelines are examples of things that are not acceptable and can be referred to by moderators as reason for removal from the community. The thing you seem to be asking for: A stricter set of rules, is not actually achievable.
And that person might be expelled for doing it elsewhere ("...either publicly or privately.")? Holy cow. One twitter freak with which you argued who tags you as any of the labels would be enough to condemn you for life.
The rules are applied by real humans, as we state in our CoC. The scenario you describe won't happen. However if someone uses Twitter DMs to harass another Godot contributor they may get removed from Godot community platforms.
If you have a party at your house and after the party some friend of friend finds the Facebook page of a friend of yours. This person then proceeds to harass your friend over Facebook, would you invite them back to your house only because the harassment didn't happen in your house?
Remember Brendan Eich, who was expelled from Mozilla for not even arguing but for a personal private donation he made to a cause people there did not agree with.
Brendan was removed from a leadership position because his private donations were to causes that directly tried to negatively impact a large number of Mozilla employees. This is an extraordinary situation and not a very useful example in the context of the Godot Code of Conduct.
1 Likes, Who?
Really you have the right to insult people - yes, you will get reaction you deserve, but that right is protected.
In my country, it is actually forbidden by law to insult people. (I'd recommend to double-check this for yours...) So in the generality you're stating it, that's wrong.
Last edited by Eike on 5 November 2019 at 8:01 am UTC
1 Likes, Who?
The thing I don't understand here is that some seem to think that the set of rules in the CoC is too broad and can be used to suppress their free speech (which they do not have in private spaces such as web forums or chat rooms or Git repos etc) but "Don't be a jerk" is just perfect.
When your only rule is "Don't be a jerk", any decision made by the moderators is 100% arbitrary and dependent on who is doing the moderating. The moderator could be using the same set of criteria as the CoC to determine who is a jerk and who is not or they could be using a significantly longer list of criteria. Or they could define a jerk as a person who they just don't like.
Also, I think people are overreacting to this whole thing simply because it's called a Code of Conduct. I think if the GOL Posting Rules were called the GOL Code of Conduct the same people would begin complaining about that too.
When your only rule is "Don't be a jerk", any decision made by the moderators is 100% arbitrary and dependent on who is doing the moderating. The moderator could be using the same set of criteria as the CoC to determine who is a jerk and who is not or they could be using a significantly longer list of criteria. Or they could define a jerk as a person who they just don't like.
Also, I think people are overreacting to this whole thing simply because it's called a Code of Conduct. I think if the GOL Posting Rules were called the GOL Code of Conduct the same people would begin complaining about that too.
9 Likes, Who?
I doubt very much that such a thing exists in any country.Really you have the right to insult people - yes, you will get reaction you deserve, but that right is protected.
In my country, it is actually forbidden by law to insult people. (I'd recommend to double-check this for yours...) So in the generality you're stating it, that's wrong.
What are you gonna do, fine people who call someone else an a**hole or idiot? That's impossible to enforce.
You are likely confusing just an insult with actual slander, which can indeed be punishable by law in many countries.
0 Likes
In my country, it is actually forbidden by law to insult people. (I'd recommend to double-check this for yours...) So in the generality you're stating it, that's wrong.I doubt very much that such a thing exists in any country.
What are you gonna do, fine people who call someone else an a**hole or idiot? That's impossible to enforce.
You are likely confusing just an insult with actual slander, which can indeed be punishable by law in many countries.
Yes, and I actually did that once for a person who... well, let's say he insisted on it.
He was charged 1000€ (*) for writing what translates well to "Piss off, Eike!" on the net.
You can look up the actual law here.
I don't know how usual this is internationally, but I really recommend to look it up before insulting anybody (instead of relying on "impossible" and "likely").
And I really recommend not insulting anybody, of course.
(*) going to some good cause neither of mine nor of his choice
Last edited by Eike on 5 November 2019 at 10:32 am UTC
0 Likes
Yes, and I actually did that once for a person who... well, let's say he insisted on it.You sued someone for telling you to piss off somewhere on the net? I'm not buying it.
He was charged 1000€ (*) for writing what translates well to "Piss off, Eike!" on the net.
There is way more context to this than you are letting on (the "insisting on it" could make something serious enough).
I mean, seriously, I'm German, too and read a lot of comments on various sites from Spiegel to Facebook (oh boy, FB comments, that's some sludge right there...) , etc. and if anyone who said something that harmless about someone else (piss off isn't even an insult, it's telling someone to leave) somewhere on the net was sued/suable, the German courts would be blocked for eternity and the law probably abolished.
That's utter nonsense. There is a certain group of toxic people that resent that their toxic statements are no longer left standing without receiving dissent for them.Dissent isn't the problem, it's what makes life interesting. The spice in the soup.
The problem is that some people are calling for outright banning, blocking, locking up, etc. of anything not stricly adhering to their own opinions and views. We've had this here, too, with topics being locked once the admins saw people were not agreeing with their own views and so any further discussion was locked under the guise of "preventing trolling" (aka "people posting stuff I don't agree with and rubbing it in my face") or something like that.
I don't doubt this topic will have the same potential outcome...
Not that admins don't have the right to do pretty much whatever on their own sites. They sure do, and they are making their standpoint clear by doing it.
And same goes for the Godot devs. If they want to exclude people who openly disagree with them about certain topics, they can do that. I don't care either way, while I do develop some stuff (modules) for Godot, I have no intention of contributing to the core engine. For different reasons than this topic here, though I have to agree it doesn't help, even if I'm not fitting any of their "bad person" checkmarks as far as I can see.
However, it should be clear to everyone that what this does is create a divide, and how that is going to benefit any project, I don't know.
Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 5 November 2019 at 11:51 am UTC
2 Likes, Who?
I mean, seriously, I'm German, too and read a lot of comments on various sites from Spiegel to Facebook (oh boy, FB comments, that's some sludge right there...) , etc. and if anyone who said something that harmless about someone else (piss off isn't even an insult, it's telling someone to leave) somewhere on the net was sued/suable, the German courts would be blocked for eternity and the law probably abolished.
[Switching to German to avoid missunderstandings]
Mir hat jemand auf einer großen Website "Verpiss dich, Eike!" geschrieben. Da derjenige sich aus meiner Sicht öfter gegenüber verschiedenen Leuten denebenbenommen hatte, habe ich Anzeige erstattet und Strafantrag gestellt. Er hatte das anonym unter einer IP-Adresse getan, die für die Strafverfolgung auf seine Person zurückgeführt wurde. Die genauen juristischen Fachbegriffe muss ich dir schuldig bleiben, ich glaube, "das Verfahren wurde gegen Zahlung eines Bußgelds eingestellt" oder so ähnlich. Fakt ist, er musste 1000€ (Zahl der Tagessätze weiß ich nicht mehr) an irgendeinen Jagdverein bezahlen.
People don't often file charges for insults on the internet, though, for sure.
PS: Isn't it irconic that you didn't want to believe there's a country forbiding insults by law - just to find out you're living in one... ;)
Last edited by Eike on 5 November 2019 at 12:02 pm UTC
0 Likes
If someone is mean to someone else in a realm that isn't related to linux, gaming or godot, that shouldn't have any impact on their ability to contribute.
It does have an impact.
If you start calling someone names, regardless if you do it offline or online on another platform, then you can't possibly expect that the other person will be willing to continue to work with you.
You also need to consider the fact that calling coworkers names reflects negatively upon the entire organization. People will think twice before joining and/or contributing.
2 Likes, Who?
Everyone is biased. Every AI we would make would inherit any biases of the pre-existing programmer/company/society/culture.
I think in general there are some valid good-faith (honest intentions) fears and arguments that stem from them on both sides (I'm not saying that both sides are equal and the Truth lies exactly in the middle). The problem arises from the fact that there are probably some bad-faith (malicious intentions) actors mixed in. People who pretend to fight for valid, honest reasons, but actually just want to harm or destroy the other side. And we need to speak out about those who on our side of the argument step out of line. Who seem to fight to harm others, rather than for fairness. Because as we know full well from US politics, this behavior - of excusing any behavior as long as it is on your side and condemning any slightest misstep on the other side - will take us nowhere.
I would say perhaps:
Toxic - One who is (assumed to intentionally be) uncaring and hurtful towards others without any provocation or justification.
Privilege - A speck of (additional) personal power and prestige and identity transferred to a person due to their background (perceived ethnicity, perceived gender, perceived sexuality). A source of ever so tiny benefits from natural biases of others stemming from our shared cultural background.
Trolling - Bad-faith discussion disguised as good-faith discussion. Not actually engaging the other person, but pretending to for the sake of personal amusement at the expense of that other person.
I think people with some privilege are unintentionally blind to how much harm they might do to others who have a more fragile position and identity in the world than others (Giorgio Armani probably has more power than any straight white males here). Also generally anyone with any smidgen of power will want to keep it. It is always a problem maintaining power calls for attacks on others. Some white people (metaphorically) punching down on the (statistically speaking) relatively powerless ethnic minorities might often be doing this to protect their advantageous position in society. To defend the "natural order of things". Those who happen to be on the top are assumed to be there because of merit not because of historical happenstance. Since this defends one's own position as the rightful ruling class. Practically anyone would have that bias in such a situation.
And some people on the right are legitimately offended that people step out to defend these minorities from attacks on their identity and personhood while some of the same "privileged" people also suffer in poverty and e.g. poor mental health.
But some people on the left feel this doesn't invalidate neither the suffering or marginalized people of color nor marginalized people who are white. Both suffer. Statistically speaking marginalized people of color probably have some extra suffering sprinkled on top due to the cultural biases against them. In any case, all marginalized people should be defended, not attacked.
[not patronizing!] I think again, the solution (for all of us) is remembering to breathe deeply and slowly to be less fearful (whether the reason for fear is takeover of society and retribution by toxic persons who care about social justice or by toxic persons who are reacting to the persons who care about social justice), since fear shuts down higher thinking. Also if we were to have a culture of consideration of the other person's viewpoint and their personhood, then I believe hate crimes, doxxing and trolling become impossible for the majority of people. Cultivate the culture you wish for.
There are people who intentionally abuse this right to discussion. People who pretend to be discussing the problem, whilst actually sneaking in more personal attacks like with a trojan horse. It is because of such people that we cannot have nice things. Very similar process can also happen unintentionally, but does not change much. If the person is unintentionally hurting others, but fails to communicate within a limited time frame (or to a moderator later) how their intentions were good, but they actually have social ineptitude. You generally turn to CoC when people are way out of line. When normal talking no longer works.
Also on the topic of the effects of proper CoC vs DBAJ ("Don't be a jerk"). I would argue that a CoC is less useful for blanket bans. Implied or real DBAJ meanwhile will allow moderators to ban people based on political preferences or attractiveness of their face or the naming scheme of their commits - they don't need to give a reason or justify their ban. With CoC there is some oversight. And there is always some trust needed.
I think in general there are some valid good-faith (honest intentions) fears and arguments that stem from them on both sides (I'm not saying that both sides are equal and the Truth lies exactly in the middle). The problem arises from the fact that there are probably some bad-faith (malicious intentions) actors mixed in. People who pretend to fight for valid, honest reasons, but actually just want to harm or destroy the other side. And we need to speak out about those who on our side of the argument step out of line. Who seem to fight to harm others, rather than for fairness. Because as we know full well from US politics, this behavior - of excusing any behavior as long as it is on your side and condemning any slightest misstep on the other side - will take us nowhere.
Toxic is not an informative world. Usually it is just meant to convey "bad" but is lacks any descriptive power. What is toxic? Histrionic words? Extreme points of view? Right-in-your face insults like "idiot"? Acid sarcasm? Left-wing views? Right-wing views? Victorian moralism? I've seen this word used with all these diverse meanings. Which depends heavily on the reader. So in fairness you should not use that word as a criteria to exclude people.
I would say perhaps:
Toxic - One who is (assumed to intentionally be) uncaring and hurtful towards others without any provocation or justification.
Privilege - A speck of (additional) personal power and prestige and identity transferred to a person due to their background (perceived ethnicity, perceived gender, perceived sexuality). A source of ever so tiny benefits from natural biases of others stemming from our shared cultural background.
Trolling - Bad-faith discussion disguised as good-faith discussion. Not actually engaging the other person, but pretending to for the sake of personal amusement at the expense of that other person.
I think people with some privilege are unintentionally blind to how much harm they might do to others who have a more fragile position and identity in the world than others (Giorgio Armani probably has more power than any straight white males here). Also generally anyone with any smidgen of power will want to keep it. It is always a problem maintaining power calls for attacks on others. Some white people (metaphorically) punching down on the (statistically speaking) relatively powerless ethnic minorities might often be doing this to protect their advantageous position in society. To defend the "natural order of things". Those who happen to be on the top are assumed to be there because of merit not because of historical happenstance. Since this defends one's own position as the rightful ruling class. Practically anyone would have that bias in such a situation.
And some people on the right are legitimately offended that people step out to defend these minorities from attacks on their identity and personhood while some of the same "privileged" people also suffer in poverty and e.g. poor mental health.
But some people on the left feel this doesn't invalidate neither the suffering or marginalized people of color nor marginalized people who are white. Both suffer. Statistically speaking marginalized people of color probably have some extra suffering sprinkled on top due to the cultural biases against them. In any case, all marginalized people should be defended, not attacked.
[not patronizing!] I think again, the solution (for all of us) is remembering to breathe deeply and slowly to be less fearful (whether the reason for fear is takeover of society and retribution by toxic persons who care about social justice or by toxic persons who are reacting to the persons who care about social justice), since fear shuts down higher thinking. Also if we were to have a culture of consideration of the other person's viewpoint and their personhood, then I believe hate crimes, doxxing and trolling become impossible for the majority of people. Cultivate the culture you wish for.
Well, there is very big difference between receiving negative comments and being banned - when people have a chance to talk out of the problem they eventually solve it or agree to disagree, but when one side is constantly banned for what they say you remove all the discussion and all chances for a problem to be resolved.
Oh, the problem is definitely resolved on their end. I call it the Genghis Khan method.
There are people who intentionally abuse this right to discussion. People who pretend to be discussing the problem, whilst actually sneaking in more personal attacks like with a trojan horse. It is because of such people that we cannot have nice things. Very similar process can also happen unintentionally, but does not change much. If the person is unintentionally hurting others, but fails to communicate within a limited time frame (or to a moderator later) how their intentions were good, but they actually have social ineptitude. You generally turn to CoC when people are way out of line. When normal talking no longer works.
Also on the topic of the effects of proper CoC vs DBAJ ("Don't be a jerk"). I would argue that a CoC is less useful for blanket bans. Implied or real DBAJ meanwhile will allow moderators to ban people based on political preferences or attractiveness of their face or the naming scheme of their commits - they don't need to give a reason or justify their ban. With CoC there is some oversight. And there is always some trust needed.
2 Likes, Who?
Spoiler, click me
[Switching to German to avoid missunderstandings]Hätte nicht gedacht, dass es diese dünnhäutigen "Anzeige ist raus!"-Personen wirklich gibt. Dachte, das wär nur Parodie auf YouTube...
Mir hat jemand auf einer großen Website "Verpiss dich, Eike!" geschrieben. Da derjenige sich aus meiner Sicht öfter gegenüber verschiedenen Leuten denebenbenommen hatte, habe ich Anzeige erstattet und Strafantrag gestellt. Er hatte das anonym unter einer IP-Adresse getan, die für die Strafverfolgung auf seine Person zurückgeführt wurde. Die genauen juristischen Fachbegriffe muss ich dir schuldig bleiben, ich glaube, "das Verfahren wurde gegen Zahlung eines Bußgelds eingestellt" oder so ähnlich. Fakt ist, er musste 1000€ (Zahl der Tagessätze weiß ich nicht mehr) an irgendeinen Jagdverein bezahlen.
Hab' ich doch wieder mal was gelernt.
Wenn das Verfahren eingestellt wurde, heißt das nur, dass da jemand lieber zahlt als sich auf ein Verfahren einzulassen (was seinerseits Geld und Zeit kostet). Keine Ahnung, was der Kerl sonst noch so geäußert hat (wohl genug, um lieber zu zahlen?), aber ich habe keinerlei Zweifel, dass ein "verpiss dich" allein auf irgend ner Seite unter keinem Umstand ausreichend beleidigend ist, um tatsächlich zu einer Verurteilung zu führen.
PS: Isn't it irconic that you didn't want to believe there's a country forbiding insults by law - just to find out you're living in one... ;)Well, I'd gladly take anyone to court whose special feelings couldn't take some opposing opinion and felt insulted.
PS: I'm not living in Germany.
0 Likes
Well, I'd gladly take anyone to court whose special feelings couldn't take some opposing opinion and felt insulted.
PS: I'm not living in Germany.
"Piss off" is not an opinion.
Neither is "A**hole" (your example above).
Opposing is all fine, insulting is not (and it sheds bad light on the sender).
1 Likes, Who?
That's not the point being made.If someone is mean to someone else in a realm that isn't related to linux, gaming or godot, that shouldn't have any impact on their ability to contribute.
It does have an impact.
If you start calling someone names, regardless if you do it offline or online on another platform, then you can't possibly expect that the other person will be willing to continue to work with you.
Obviously, you shouldn't keep a worker around that insults other workers.
But whatever happens that is not (either publicly or privately) between workers/team members but between a worker and other, unrelated people (or no people at all, just someone voicing opinions), should have no consequences beyond affecting inter-personal relations at work if it becomes known. And if those relations are then harmed so much that the person in question has to leave is a different question, to be decided case-by-case, not by some general checkmarked ruleset of forbidden opinions.
Stuff like that is called call-out/cancel culture and there is a reason that even people as "left" as Obama and T. Noah are not on board with it.
1 Likes, Who?
I am familiar with jokes about the Germans but i still find the ability to sue (not win, just sue) someone over a "piss off" remark very hard to believe. Even on public internet.
We have (mostly unenforced) laws on public insults in Belgium but such a case would be tossed and at worst end up in penalties for frivolous lawsuit.
I guess real life is not that different here. Insults on the internet is usal business, even death threats are becoming more and more usual.
About what can be done: Are you sure, or is it just a feeling because real life differs so much from law? I'd bet most Germans wouldn't believe it either, just like TheSheeep.
0 Likes
Godwin's law confirmed.
I had hoped people would ignore that AH namedrop (really, don't do that, please).
I had hoped people would ignore that AH namedrop (really, don't do that, please).
2 Likes, Who?
Dude, chill.Godwin's law confirmed.
I had hoped people would ignore that AH namedrop (really, don't do that, please).
Study that law again kid. I did not compare anyone to Hitler here. And as long as I abide to GoL posting rules, I can write whatever I want... funny how freedom of speech is such a volatile concept!
I'm on your side, but even if you didn't compare anyone, someone will interpret it that way and so here we go.
Just don't namedrop the guy, it never works out well and always leads to derailments like this one right here. Not worth the hassle, really. Enough other people to namedrop available ;)
0 Likes
I was in favor of the new CoC, since it I thought it offered protection to those who dissent against the majority with the "political orientation" statement.
Some folks feel constantly attacked for their political identity. Especially if their political identity aligns with a demographic that is seen as the opponent to the other protected identities. They shouldn't have to defend it. Political orientation is a barrier to entry for group projects.
I had hopes that the Godot crew had realized that there is no paradox of tolerance.
Some folks believe that others are promoting bigotry and intolerance by merely holding an opposing view.
They are likely going to have a political ideology that actively rejects the notion of the "paradox of tolerance".
People should not be kicked out of a community for their political views.
They should not be kicked out of a community for their views on science.
I hope that the Godot team actively encourages their ideological opponents to work with them to build great things together.
I hope Godot expands upon the protections they've written for those who see the world differently, especially for political orientation.
If we don't actively protect civil dissent and disagreement within our cliques, then we are promoting intolerance.
It is unfair to expect any Godot contributor to possibly have to defend their identity to someone who questions it. This adds a barrier to entry that we simply do not want to exist.
Some folks feel constantly attacked for their political identity. Especially if their political identity aligns with a demographic that is seen as the opponent to the other protected identities. They shouldn't have to defend it. Political orientation is a barrier to entry for group projects.
I had hopes that the Godot crew had realized that there is no paradox of tolerance.
There is of course the paradox of tolerance. If you are tolerant do you need to be tolerant of the intolerant? Our Code of Conduct neatly answers our community's point of view of this matter: You do not need to be tolerant of the intolerant.
Some folks believe that others are promoting bigotry and intolerance by merely holding an opposing view.
They are likely going to have a political ideology that actively rejects the notion of the "paradox of tolerance".
People should not be kicked out of a community for their political views.
They should not be kicked out of a community for their views on science.
I hope that the Godot team actively encourages their ideological opponents to work with them to build great things together.
I hope Godot expands upon the protections they've written for those who see the world differently, especially for political orientation.
If we don't actively protect civil dissent and disagreement within our cliques, then we are promoting intolerance.
1 Likes, Who?
I was in favor of the new CoC, since it I thought it offered protection to those who dissent against the majority with the "political orientation" statement.
It is unfair to expect any Godot contributor to possibly have to defend their identity to someone who questions it. This adds a barrier to entry that we simply do not want to exist.
People's political views are protected. Merely having an opinion is not a problem. However if someone holding a political opinion regarding, say, someone's gender expression then there is no protection for that person to express this towards the person or any public Godot space.
Some folks feel constantly attacked for their political identity. Especially if their political identity aligns with a demographic that is seen as the opponent to the other protected identities. They shouldn't have to defend it. Political orientation is a barrier to entry for group projects.
Some folks believe that others are promoting bigotry and intolerance by merely holding an opposing view.
<snip for brevity>
I hope Godot expands upon the protections they've written for those who see the world differently, especially for political orientation. If we don't actively protect civil dissent and disagreement within our cliques, then we are promoting intolerance.
Nobody is asked to defend their views, however this does mean that someone who has a political problem with (for instance) transgender people will have to use correct pronouns for the person they are talking to or about. This person would not be allowed to start a discussion on this topic inside a public Godot space, or in private with anyone without prior consent to have said discussion.
To summarize: There are no plans for some kind of 'thought police' you can have any private view you'd like. However your conduct while holding those views is held to a certain standard. If someone's private views prevent them from conducting themselves in a manner compatible with our Code of Conduct then they might be removed.
4 Likes, Who?
The lead developer himself clarified some things - which all sound fine to me.
I asked if they should maybe add a tl;dr of that to the statement itself, which he said "might be a good idea".
I asked if they should maybe add a tl;dr of that to the statement itself, which he said "might be a good idea".
1 Likes, Who?
Kimyrielle Nov 5, 2019
The problem is that some people are calling for outright banning, blocking, locking up, etc. of anything not stricly adhering to their own opinions and views.
See, to me that's the issue: Some people demand for themselves to have the freedom to speak their mind wherever and whenever they want to, no matter how toxic/insulting their "opinion" is, but at the same time deny the Godot developers the freedom to chose who they want to work with. That's applied hypocrisy, right there.
Would I want to have a misogynist in a project I am leading? Absolutely NOT!!! Not even if their code was the best thing since sliced bread. I haul their sorry butt out of the door, period. And I find this the most natural thing on Earth, really.
It doesn't matter if people cannot on agree what exactly constitutes "toxic". The only thing that matters is whether or not the Godot maintainers find you toxic, and if they do for whatever reason, they have the right not to work with you. It's THEIR project and THEIR decision. Freedom goes both ways. You can't have the cake and eat it. People should actually be glad that they're clear and upfront about what sort of people aren't welcome in their project.
2 Likes, Who?
Would I want to have a misogynist in a project I am leading? Absolutely NOT!!! Not even if their code was the best thing since sliced bread. I haul their sorry butt out of the door, period. And I find this the most natural thing on Earth, really.If that misogynist in your project behaves just fine towards everyone in the project and the users and does a good job - what does it matter what views he holds privately?
You don't want to convince him of anything other than your power to get him offed, you don't want to understand why he thinks what he thinks, how he came to the wrong conclusions. You want to get someone fired for simply not agreeing with you on topics that are for one reason or another dear to you - and you think it to be the most natural thing on Earth.
That's really quite sad, and it is behaviour like that which drives more and more people to the extreme sides of the spectrum while not changing anyone's mind - quite the opposite, actually, it only reinforces their views and theories.
1 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me