4 ms·

> (3) followed from (1) because it gave me a line in the sand that I could point to, without having to result to any sort of explicit threat. I'm not sure how

by Sacho 10y ago

> (3) followed from (1) because it gave me a line in the sand that I could point to, without having to result to any sort of explicit threat. I'm not sure how different the implicit threat of enforcing the CoC by banning people is from the explicit threat of enforcing civility by banning people. I guess the problem here stems from where respect for your authority lies. It sounds like the harassers in this situation had more respect for the authority of the CoC, possibly enacted by a community decision, rather than your own personal judgement. That seems like a positive for a large community where most members do not have a strong connection with the administrative staff. > If someone is being passive aggressive or outright hostile then that in and of itself is likely to be violating the standards of a CoC The whole point of passive-aggressive attacks are that they do not violate the CoC on their face.

shadowmint 10y ago
If all you have is today's moderator's personal feelings about what kind of comments are passive-aggressive and what sort deserve a ban, how is that any better than codifying it as a standard? You don't need a massive rule book, but surely having some basic rules is better than having none? If you don't have rules, then what, it's just personal judgement on how I feel today about what you said today that rubs me the wrong way and I hand out a ban? Come on, it's daft. Communities need to feel like there is a strong consistent moderator presence in them; if you're all over the place doing whatever, the community will fall apart into arguments and spam; there are countless examples of it. The difference is when the community is small (ie. many software projects) its probably perfectly easy for one single moderator (eg. the project owner) to be consistent and thoughtful in how they handle the community. ...but that model doesn't scale.
- strawmart 10y ago
  Color it with "code of conduct" terminology all you want: it still boils down to "how I feel today" for interpretation and execution. CoCs that include punitive measures are going to far.

by Sacho 10y ago

shadowmint 10y ago

If all you have is today's moderator's personal feelings about what kind of comments are passive-aggressive and what sort deserve a ban, how is that any better than codifying it as a standard? You don't need a massive rule book, but surely having some basic rules is better than having none? If you don't have rules, then what, it's just personal judgement on how I feel today about what you said today that rubs me the wrong way and I hand out a ban? Come on, it's daft. Communities need to feel like there is a strong consistent moderator presence in them; if you're all over the place doing whatever, the community will fall apart into arguments and spam; there are countless examples of it. The difference is when the community is small (ie. many software projects) its probably perfectly easy for one single moderator (eg. the project owner) to be consistent and thoughtful in how they handle the community. ...but that model doesn't scale.

strawmart 10y ago
Color it with "code of conduct" terminology all you want: it still boils down to "how I feel today" for interpretation and execution. CoCs that include punitive measures are going to far.