| ▲ | fwip a day ago |
| > high value contributors won't follow it High-value contributors follow the rules and social mores of the community they are contributing to. If they intentionally deceive others, they are not high-value. |
|
| ▲ | hombre_fatal 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This is a good example of my point. Instead of progressing to a system resilient to the fact that you can't know how code was written, you've created a rule that, because it's unenforceable and deniable, must retreat to moralization about what someone does in private. That might make you feel good, but it won't work. |
|
| ▲ | pixl97 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Ah, the no true Scotsman theory. |
| |
| ▲ | thunderfork 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Arguing that "doesn't secretly, sneakily break project rules" is an essential component of a quality contributor isn't a "no true scotsman" argument, it's a statement about qualifications | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You see where this becomes a religious like argument right? Since it's secretly and sneakily there is no way to measure it. So as far as any other participant knows there is no measurable difference, hence your argument depends on said agents to be 'pure' and 'true', hence the exact definition of the no true Scotsman fallacy. I hope you see how this quickly will advance from a project being about accomplishing some goal, to a project becoming about humans showing they are the ones writing code. Much like we see in religions where people don't give money to the poor to benefit the poor, but show they give money to the poor to benefit themselves. Hence the game playing will continue and the underlying problem will never be addressed. |
|
|
