[allreduce]

I find it weird to jump to this from the scarce information we have.

"Someone did a CoC violation" is just a way for an org to say "someone was an asshole to such an extent it was driving other people away or getting us into legal trouble", with the manner of assholery defined in the CoC. 9/10 times it is nothing sinister.

Of course right now we just don't know what happened.

[jacquesm]

The one thing I know is that for threads such as this one it is best to ignore all of the stuff from accounts made just for the purpose of participating in the thread.

[xyzzyxy]

In this case, given the topic of this thread is targeted harassment in response to public social media criticism, I think it's understandable that some folks might like to participate anonymously to avoid becoming a future target.

[doubleunplussed]

> "Someone did a CoC violation" is just a way for an org to say "someone was an asshole [...]"

Not even that, since so many CoCs are vague enough that someone unprincipled wielding them could be using them for petty interpersonal disputes. Unless I already have reason to trust the accuser, when I see "CoC violation" it tells me there's drama but it doesn't tell me who the asshole is.

[swed420]

> I find it weird to jump to this from the scarce information we have.

If you look at how I worded my comment, you'll see I didn't jump to any conclusion. Only you have, apparently.

(edit: Also unsurprising to see your account is two days old)

[grugagag]

Are you HR or something?

[allreduce]

Nah but I recognize that HR, unfortunately, has to exist for larger organizations.

Unless you have an infinitely wise and patient dictator who can just say "you're an asshole, you go" and always make the right call or something.