This also requires a pretty extreme degree of a priori self-censorship just to be safe: "Making jokes within earshot of someone you know (or even think) is upset by them is a violation of consent"
Re:Why We're Sponsoring LambdaConf 2016
by HCIdivision17 on Tuesday March 29, 2016 @06:45PM
(#11385585)
There seems to be a signal of intent there; some people are accidentally senseless jerks (including yours truly), and a simple reprimand is enough to tone it back. By contrast, the sort this seems to be aimed at would likely scoff it off. I guess like "Hey man, don't be a jerk" followed by either "Oh sorry, didn't mean any offense" or "Hey! I'm not a jerk!"
Like many moderation policies, I guess we can just hope the moderators are, well, moderate.
This sounds like a recipe for politics.
The rule of law was created because prosecutorial discretion is awful.
Can I respond to a statement you made? So that you are properly informed of what you would be consenting my response of, it is the following statement:
>That seems like the way reasonable human beings ought to behave.
I give consent for you to reply only to the above question and nothing else.
To the two people [0] who downvoted, would you care to explain why being a reasonable person asking for consent before communication was a problem? I didn't consent to the downvotes (a non-verbal form of communication and a microaggression, might I add) but I will consent to listening to your explanation. If you'd like to discuss it like a reasonable person.
[0] Or one person on two accounts, given the time frame of both downvotes happening almost immediately one after the other nearly 20 hours after the original post.
Taken literally, that means that nobody can ever initiate a conversation there.
Taken just slightly less literally, though, it means that if you go up to someone and ask "Can I talk to you?" and they say "No", then you can't talk to them. That seems like the way reasonable human beings ought to behave.
I agree that the last two sentences seem easy to abuse.