[Azaezel]

You are consistently failing to separate the action from the actor.

Nobody is saying folks cannot object to an action. What they are saying (and all that this CoC codifies) is that you can and indeed are encouraged to criticize any given act or product. But if the language used is applied to an individual or group and not the act itself then it's downright counterproductive. Just look at how badly your actions have cut yourself off from the rest of the community to see that as a consequence of the continued inability to draw the distinction.

Circling back to the OP to give an example:

If the user then goes on to violate the CoC again in a similar manner, not having shown any acknowledgement to their behavior or what they have done wrong, they weill be suspended temporarily(3 days).
If they, after returning from suspension go to violate the CoC yet again, then they will face a ban.

This bit seems overly harsh. There's going to be times when folks just flat out have either bad days and leak, or get bogged down in one of their personal blind spots and don't realize they're making an ass of themselves. I'd suggest instead a progressive cooling off period. So 3 then 6, then 9 days. If they haven't cooled off in 2 weeks, then yeah, odds are they aren't going to.

That'd be an example of focusing on the act. Note at no point did I suggest Jeff was some corrupt or compromised dictator trying to impose his will (or whoever prompted him to put it together) in a harsh manner, nor an idiot for not thinking of an alternative himself. Didn't even mention him at all in the objection statement.

Just the proposed act.
That's really all it takes to stay compliant.
Focus on the act.
Not the Person.
That simple.

[Duion]

The only thing that cut me off from the rest of the community was you switching to Discord exclusively without asking anyone. I did not do anything that cut me off or whatever. Also there exists no behavior you can do or avoid to be cut off or included in a social group, since humans can decide and act totally arbitrary, therefore it is impossible to argue on that basis.

[JeffR]

Circling back to the OP to give an example:

If the user then goes on to violate the CoC again in a similar manner, not having shown any acknowledgement to their behavior or what they have done wrong, they weill be suspended temporarily(3 days).
If they, after returning from suspension go to violate the CoC yet again, then they will face a ban.

This bit seems overly harsh. There's going to be times when folks just flat out have either bad days and leak, or get bogged down in one of their personal blind spots and don't realize they're making an ass of themselves. I'd suggest instead a progressive cooling off period. So 3 then 6, then 9 days. If they haven't cooled off in 2 weeks, then yeah, odds are they aren't going to.

That's a pretty reasonable tweak to the idea. I'll also talk to lukas and see if we can find any kind of moderation strikes marker so it's easier to keep tabs on things. I've seen forum systems where it's a "health" system that comes back over time on good behavior, which I think is a good way to approach things. If it is just a bad day, they get dinged for 3 days temp suspension. After that if they don't continue the behavior, their "health" will come back over a period of time and it'd be like the bad spot never happened as it'd reflect their non-recurrance of behavior.

[Azaezel]

That's a pretty reasonable tweak to the idea. I'll also talk to lukas and see if we can find any kind of moderation strikes marker so it's easier to keep tabs on things. I've seen forum systems where it's a "health" system that comes back over time on good behavior, which I think is a good way to approach things. If it is just a bad day, they get dinged for 3 days temp suspension. After that if they don't continue the behavior, their "health" will come back over a period of time and it'd be like the bad spot never happened as it'd reflect their non-recurrance of behavior.

Speaking of markers, short of illegal, would make it a point to tag whatever post-instance triggered the banning. Makes it clear to onlookers what exactly triggered a mod action (which in turn makes it easier all around to review it if a *mod* is having a bad day/tripping on a personal pov and reading more into it than was said). Sunlight being the best disinfectant and all.

[Duion]

It would be much easier, if you could create a censorship list of all things that are illegal to say, so the dissident can better understand his misbehavior and correct it.