Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 16, 2022. It is now read-only.

Commit

Permalink
State our anti-values
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history 
This is useful in light of our decision to start curating users on the basis of brand fitness.
  • Loading branch information
@chadwhitacre
chadwhitacre committed Apr 30, 2015
1 parent e6124d1 commit e12253c
Showing 1 changed file with 11 additions and 0 deletions.
11 changes: 11 additions & 0 deletions www/big-picture/brand/index.spt
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -37,6 +37,17 @@ GitHub](https://github.com/gratipay/gratipay.com/issues/1659#issuecomment-282455
Yes.


## Anti-Values

We like to locate our identity in what we're for, not what we're against. That
said, we can't be for one thing without being against its opposite, and it can
be helpful for others to know where we stand: We don't wish to promote or
associate with people and organizations whose persona or brand is characterized
by **conflict**, **combativeness**, **divisiveness**, **intimidation**,
**outrage**, and the like. We like working together with other people who like
working together! :-)


## Logo Files

<a href="/assets/heart-coin.svg">
Expand Down

4 comments on commit e12253c

@techtonik
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Conflict, divisiveness means we have the right to ban any user who do not agree with us. But then, who are we? @Changaco did not agree with you and left. You will also need to ban me, because my persona is highly conflicting in some Internet circles.

I don't see censorship can support openness. It looks like it all started from SJW vs 8chan case, which is probably a result of gamergate, which is probably a result of some political technology testing. And as a result at least one core developer of GP is left and me is considering if I want to support this.

You know, I live in a very dark world, the world that is much closer to Fredrick Brennan than to those people who can earn $3000 a month without a sad feeling.

To resolve this gracefully, the best way is to conduct a thorough case study on this matter, keeping neutrality in the process and pause, not ban, accounts under investigation. From the business side of view, SJW and infinitechan are stakeholders. If government (who need to regulate the stuff) doesn't tell us who is guilty, and both parties provide a revenue, we need to choose one who is more profitable if there is no other choice. Let SJW side proof that infinitechan is illegal and escalate the conflict to the level where we can ban infinitechan without sacrificing our reputation and open culture.

I'd also say that this opens a door for more attacks on GP developers. Many people have their own biases and points of view. It is easy to identify them and attack. I think that GP should protect its developers, because it may happen that all of this is just a competitor's trick.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've copied your comments to #194, though I don't plan to deeply engage that issue until after gratipay/gratipay.com#67.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Scratch that. #187 (comment) instead.

@techtonik
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep, technical issues are more important than that.

Please sign in to comment.