3 ms·

It shouldn't be necessary, but it is. We live in an age where if an action is not explicitly called out as unacceptable, a significant number of people will pe

It shouldn't be necessary, but it is. We live in an age where if an action is not explicitly called out as unacceptable, a significant number of people will perform said action, because if it's not explicitly unacceptable, it's obviously acceptable. In short, if you don't say I can't abuse people, it's ok for me to abuse people. Oh, and these people will also happily throw around the "First Amendment" as justification, which makes me incredibly sad for the future of our nation. Solving that behavior though is incredibly difficult.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tomp 11y ago
> We live in an age where if an action is not explicitly called out as unacceptable, a significant number of people will perform said action, because if it's not explicitly unacceptable, it's obviously acceptable. I don't think this is a good argument, because you might as well say We live in an age where if an action is explicitly called out as unacceptable, a significant number of people will perform said action, to protest the very idea that it was made explicitly unacceptable.
curun1r 11y ago
The reason they're unnecessary is that codes of conduct aren't legally enforceable and the resulting actions from violating them can be taken by the community regardless of whether they have a code of conduct. I agree with Bo Burnham when he said, "Who needs a thousand metaphors to realize you shouldn't be a dick?" [1] (or, in this case, a thousand prohibited behaviors) If someone does act in a way that is unacceptable, the community should, politely, explain to them that that sort of behavior isn't allowed and why it's not allowed, since often times people are communicating in a foreign language or are coming from a culture that has different norms. If the behavior persists, you take whatever action you would have taken had you had a code of conduct. Basically, there's no practical need for legal-level detail in a code of conduct, just use, "don't be a jerk." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxc20saM8DA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxc20saM8DA (audio NSFW)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tomp 11y ago

> We live in an age where if an action is not explicitly called out as unacceptable, a significant number of people will perform said action, because if it's not explicitly unacceptable, it's obviously acceptable. I don't think this is a good argument, because you might as well say We live in an age where if an action is explicitly called out as unacceptable, a significant number of people will perform said action, to protest the very idea that it was made explicitly unacceptable.

curun1r 11y ago

The reason they're unnecessary is that codes of conduct aren't legally enforceable and the resulting actions from violating them can be taken by the community regardless of whether they have a code of conduct. I agree with Bo Burnham when he said, "Who needs a thousand metaphors to realize you shouldn't be a dick?" [1] (or, in this case, a thousand prohibited behaviors) If someone does act in a way that is unacceptable, the community should, politely, explain to them that that sort of behavior isn't allowed and why it's not allowed, since often times people are communicating in a foreign language or are coming from a culture that has different norms. If the behavior persists, you take whatever action you would have taken had you had a code of conduct. Basically, there's no practical need for legal-level detail in a code of conduct, just use, "don't be a jerk." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxc20saM8DA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxc20saM8DA (audio NSFW)