4 ms·

> I don't recall any of the projects I worked on having a CoC [...] I did see aggressive list moderation be abused Right, no CoC, just random moderators who ab

> I don't recall any of the projects I worked on having a CoC [...] I did see aggressive list moderation be abused Right, no CoC, just random moderators who abused their power. I don't see how that's a good thing. I think having a CoC can limit the explicit powers given to moderators so that moderators can only moderate very bad behavior like X, Y, and Z, but not A, B, and C. Of course, this depends on moderators being held to the CoC (i.e. if a moderator doesn't follow the CoC, you make it clear that's not OK so they aren't "abusive" again), and it depends on X, Y, and Z being very carefully deliberated. > You talk about a "mass exodus". I find myself skeptical of this claim Visit Twitter and look at Node's "thought leaders". I'll update this post with some links to tweets in a couple minutes. > If the NodeJS contributors are so dependent on a CoC then it seems like they went badly wrong somewhere. Somehow other projects thrive without one. Right, many projects of Node's size thrive without any CoC, they just have moderators following whatever rules the mods deem fit, or they just allow toxicity. If you want to remove toxicity while holding mods accountable, some sort of CoC is the way to go.

peoplewindow 9y ago
You don't need a CoC to deal with 'poisonous people' as the old talk by the Subversion guys named them. You just need a maintainer with common sense who treats list bans as a last resort, but is willing to use them if things get out of hand. If the maintainer can't be trusted to do such things properly, they probably can't be trusted to exercise common sense in other areas too, but in practice I've not seen that be an issue. Normally trolls go away if ignored. Also as far as I can tell CoCs are invariably so vague that they just trigger more fighting. Now there's a formal excuse to do it, you see.
- jamescostian 9y ago
  Again, you're arguing in favor of trusting mods (or just one sole maintainer). I'm arguing that mods will abuse power unless their power is restricted, which is why I think CoCs are good. One could argue that all you need is a single maintainer, like North Korea has, and I get it, that does sound simpler. But I prefer it when there are more rules to prevent dictators - I think those rules can limit the powers of the overrulers and simultaneously put a wrench in harassment.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    Well yes, lots of projects do run on the so-called "benign dictator" model. As do nearly all companies. Moderators abusing their power is absolutely possible. However it seems to me, anecdotally, that putting in place a CoC is a good sign that such abuse is about to get far more common. The problem is that a CoC cannot really be any more precise than my vague 'use common sense' strategy is. A CoC will basically say "be nice to people, don't be a dick" in more flowery language, but ultimately - as incidents like this one show - there will still be moderators who decide whether any given incident is in violation. So a CoC doesn't really help with moderator abuse: if they want to be abusive, they're going to do it. Of course, you can get really in depth and create judgement panels, voting mechanisms, appeals processes etc for a CoC violation. But we already have that, it's law.

peoplewindow 9y ago

You don't need a CoC to deal with 'poisonous people' as the old talk by the Subversion guys named them. You just need a maintainer with common sense who treats list bans as a last resort, but is willing to use them if things get out of hand. If the maintainer can't be trusted to do such things properly, they probably can't be trusted to exercise common sense in other areas too, but in practice I've not seen that be an issue. Normally trolls go away if ignored. Also as far as I can tell CoCs are invariably so vague that they just trigger more fighting. Now there's a formal excuse to do it, you see.

jamescostian 9y ago
Again, you're arguing in favor of trusting mods (or just one sole maintainer). I'm arguing that mods will abuse power unless their power is restricted, which is why I think CoCs are good. One could argue that all you need is a single maintainer, like North Korea has, and I get it, that does sound simpler. But I prefer it when there are more rules to prevent dictators - I think those rules can limit the powers of the overrulers and simultaneously put a wrench in harassment.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Well yes, lots of projects do run on the so-called "benign dictator" model. As do nearly all companies. Moderators abusing their power is absolutely possible. However it seems to me, anecdotally, that putting in place a CoC is a good sign that such abuse is about to get far more common. The problem is that a CoC cannot really be any more precise than my vague 'use common sense' strategy is. A CoC will basically say "be nice to people, don't be a dick" in more flowery language, but ultimately - as incidents like this one show - there will still be moderators who decide whether any given incident is in violation. So a CoC doesn't really help with moderator abuse: if they want to be abusive, they're going to do it. Of course, you can get really in depth and create judgement panels, voting mechanisms, appeals processes etc for a CoC violation. But we already have that, it's law.