You don't and that's why everyone gets so angry and annoyed when people try to force precise definitions.

There's no team of lawyers verifying the provenance of all code/projects submitted to codeberg. THe policy is just something they can point to as a general guidelines of what kind of shit they want to support.

Everyone knows exactly what kind of projects they're talking about. The people trying to nitpick definitions are those annoying ass people at the board game night that spend half the time combing through the rule book trying to figure out why whatever they didn't like was against the rules.

That's why they say they don't need an AI detector and that anyone who complains about the rule is guilty.

Ordinarily that's a bad way to run a rule. But not this time!

What the folks involved were actually saying, and what let slip multiple times through all those threads is: Any use of the tool is Wrong(tm). They never meant anything by the "majority" or "vibe-coded" or whatever because they didn't need to or want to; Multiple people let slip in all sorts of forums what the intent was: define a policy ambiguous enough that it could be used for frankly vibe-based exclusion. Defining the terms of exclusion was deliberately avoided because a) if-you-know-you-know b) they wanted to reserve the freedom to sit in judgement.

That's fine for new projects. Their sandbox and they can decide who plays in it. But the people who were using codeberg for months or even years and relying on it, and had to move... deserved better treatment.

Fomr my eyes the questions about what defines "majority" were well-intention-ed queries with the motive of trying to ferret out what the criterion for was in the eyes of the people who proposed the vote. That they refused to answer, and cast aspersions on the people who asked... is both a damning judgement on their personal character but also their community management.

What we have is a community defining an in-group and an out-group. And just like middle school, "you'll just know" if you're in one or the other.,

Good grief. What a bizarre cultish echo chamber. The tools make you dirty. Don't touch the tools.

Why put words in their mouth? They clearly mean a majority. They don't want projects that are majority written by LLMs. If they didn't want projects that an LLM had ever been anywhere near, they would've just said that. They're not under any shareholder pressure to lie.

And now you're literally saying that a "no vibecoded projects" rule is a slippery slope to actual fascism. Good grief! What nonsense!