Well, it looks like the Ioquake 3 accessibility enhancements won't be merged into the upstream code because, supposedly, Prism uses Claude. Of course, the only evidence offered in defense of this stance was (1) that Claude was a contributor of the repo even though it had not made any contributions itself and (2) two PRs (which did not touch any actual Prism code, but only portions of the repository which, by their nature, could be eliminated either without changes at all, in the case of the first PR, or with minimal changes to the build system, if anything else, for the second) used Claude. Because of this and the maintainers absolute refusal to apply context or nuance as would be done in any other circumstance when applying a policy, and my refusal to simply accept the mudslinging and instead to discuss the usage in question and to identify how to proceed, I was deamed as "not being able to make good decisions about this" and I was removed from the Discord where the discussion was being had. Now, I am no pro-AI individual by any means. I don't like reading AI-authored materials in general and dislike when people engage in cognitive surreneder. However, there is a reason that a policy is not applied in it's absolutist form: English is a contextual language, and nuance is everywhere. This is the same reason that law is not applied as it is read and we have judiciaries: context and nuance has to be considered alongside the text or spirit of the law at base, and were we to apply the text of the law as is, we would all be criminals. So I understand anti-AI sentiment. I have much of it myself. I only vibe-code things when I'm experimenting with something to see if it is even feasible in the first place. I won't deny that Claude has helped me get out of tight spots when developing Prism, but I do not allow Claude write access to the repository under any circumstances. So, for the aforementioned paragraph and the irrationality of the maintainer of Ioquake, it is unlikely that my accessibility work will be upstreamed, and this is despite the fact that the maintainer themselves said that blindness was important to them and changed their life. I would call this a form of discrimination if it weren't for the fact that discrimination has a specific meaning.