Same to you, have a good one.

My supposition about the necessity of ground rules is precisely as supported as the alternatives offered in this discussion. Poorly supported by the standards of rigorous debate, I agree, but supported enough for casual discussion. No one has offered any evidence CoCs are caused by busybodies. ("Silently" seems unnecessary, it wasn't silent, I stated it aloud and described why I thought it was so. I can't help but point out again, you go on to dispute it, but not with any evidence. I think that's fine for casual discussion, but it's not meeting the bar you're setting.)

"Scheme to elevate property values" is a shared interest if all of the homeowners primarily view their homes as financial instruments. People get bent out of shape with HOAs because they want their home for other things. Some people would rather put up radio towers or paint their house a garish color or park a truck on their lawn than maximize their property value.

CoCs are as old as dirt. I signed one every single year in elementary school, decades ago. They've been a norm in workplaces for a long time. They're more recent in open source projects, and they started because of problems projects were having - people being creepy at conferences, people starting drama on mailing lists, etc.

What's recent is the politicization of CoCs.

If it helps, I would agree that busybodies might abuse both of these mechanisms to impose themselves on their neighbors and colleagues. I disagree that that is the root of why they exist, on the basis that they can be explained by incentives and pragmatic considerations. On an Occam's razor basis, if I don't need to assume busybodies are the motivating force to explain the existence of these things, then I won't, until such a time I receive evidence I can't explain without them. Were we colleagues, and I were involved in drafting a CoC, "I don't want a CoC because I'm worried it will be abused by busybodies" is a concern I'd take seriously.

The HOA analogy would be appropriate if HOAs were about conduct among colleagues. It's pretty obvious why you need to set ground rules when you have a huge number of people collaborating - you get incidents of people behaving inappropriately, and if that behavior proliferates, you will create a hostile environment where it's difficult for work to be done. (See this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43147705)

HOAs are a problem because there is very little shared interest in regulating the size of hedges or the color you may paint your house or whatever. It's a scheme to keep property values elevated.

There is no connection between these phenomena. One of them addresses pragmatic and real problems, however flawed the implementation may be. The author is a scheme to manipulate property markets. There is no shared cause between them.

If you had said, "oh, that was a mistake, I didn't mean to imply they had extrapolated from a single instance," then I would've believed you then, too.

They made a side note in an "about" page. You're making a mountain out of a pebble. The author made a minor note about their thought process, you have been complaining about it and have now crossed into personal attacks on them. "Whining" is not a stone you ought to be throwing.

> If the author doesn't want to dive into the mailing list then good for them. Leave it at that.

They did leave it at that.

Physician, heal thyself.

This idea they were surprised a project succeeded without having a CoC is an artefact of this particular discussion, not something the author ever said or implied. It was in the same category as de Raadt swearing at people over email - they didn't anticipate a productive exchange if they reached out. That's it.

If someone declares they reserve the right to treat people however they please, and then you observe them treating people in a way you don't want to be treated, and your conclusion is, "I don't think emailing this person is a good use of my time, I'm just going to host this website myself" - I find it hard to understand how anyone would find that objectionable, that seems simple, common sense, and largely neutral.

b.) Whenever you have a large group of people collaborating for an extended period of time, you have incidents. There's drama. There's inappropriate behavior. It's just how it goes. It's a Murphy's Law thing.

Eventually people sit down and say, "we've gotta set some ground rules." You probably signed a code of conduct at every school you attended and every job you've accepted. I know I have.

You can disagree with that without viewing it as a conspiracy. It's a predictable result of being in a large community, and about as ideological as traffic lights.

I honestly can't fathom suggesting people don't pay attention to teen drug use. It takes up a lot of oxygen. Every school has some kind of drug awareness program.

Suicide prevention and mental health outreach deserve more funding and attention, but it's also incorrect to suggest they're wholly ignored.

These are also things which can be addressed by individual action. A parent can intercede if their child starts using drugs or becomes depressed. Gun violence can only be addressed collectively. By the time a child is shot, a parent can do nothing.

The usual suggestion for individual action is to become armed, but I don't think it's really a good idea for most people to own a firearm. Owning a firearm is a huge responsibility that many people aren't ready to handle. I think we all know someone who had a negligent discharge cleaning their weapon, or who struggles to control their anger. Indeed, you mentioned suicide being an issue - access to a gun is a risk factor in suicide, and most gun deaths are suicides.

Personally, what makes me discount a source as unreliable is when they don't state clearly what their problems are but instead make it known through vague insinuations or by a litany of tangential complaints. When someone says "I'm uncomfortable with X" I respect their candor, regardless of how I feel about X.

Your question about LDS is fair, I'm just not knowledgeable enough about LDS that I feel qualified to address it. What "successful ideologies" do you believe came out of cults, and why do you believe that?