4 ms·

Edit: This might be one of those cases where I need to explicitly say I agree with the following statement before giving pushback on the thing it defends. Thin

Edit: This might be one of those cases where I need to explicitly say I agree with the following statement before giving pushback on the thing it defends. Things we strive for should be their best possible version, even if criticizing the current from means giving trolls and opposition ammunition. >But the purpose of such a code is not to threaten anybody; indeed, it is the opposite. The fact that this is regularly and explicitly clarified indicates the original document is poorly drafted. For the sake of avoiding the obvious tangents, lets presuppose the best possible interpretation of the original code. Even in that case, no amount of blaming the people that made the clarification necessary (by - for example - saying that they're uncharitably reading the original) makes the code better drafted.

wccrawford 8y ago
>The fact that this is regularly and explicitly clarified indicates the original document is poorly drafted. Would you say the same about the US constitution? It was designed to be updated and changed, rather than be written in stone. To you, is that the same as saying that it's "poorly drafted" and they knew it? To most people, I think they feel that's a sign that they were wise enough to know that they couldn't think of everything, and that the document would have to change over time.
- repolfx 8y ago
  Is that a valid analogy? The US Constitution tries not to be vague, and is extremely clear about its aims. Being updatable is not the same as having a generic "... and anything else that we might consider problematic" clause in it. And the Constitution comes with an infrastructure that is constantly trying to clarify what it means when applied, not a perfect infrastructure for sure, but at least judges and the Supremes understand that their issue is to clarify interpretation and not simply make judgements about individuals on an ad-hoc basis. In other words, nobody argues that the Constitution is dangerous and designed to nail particular groups to the wall, because the document itself is clear proof that such a statement would be false. The CoC that has caused so much drama in other projects needs this kind of "don't worry it won't be abused" disclaimers, largely because the authors didn't actually try to pin themselves down (they didn't want to). It has deliberately vague clauses and the classic "... and anything else inappropriate" tacked on the end, which renders the document meaningless. In addition it is routinely used to attack certain groups but not others. These problems could have been avoided by better drafting, but one suspects it would then not have met the goals of the drafters.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The US Constitution tries not to be vague No, it doesn't. I mean, it tries not to be vague on the points on which a very specific decision was reached, but it equally is deliberately vague on other points. > Being updatable is not the same as having a generic "... and anything else that we might consider problematic" clause in it. On the other hand, it does, for instance, have the Elastic Clause. > In other words, nobody argues that the Constitution is dangerous and designed to nail particular groups to the wall Yes, they regularly do (with “persons of African descent” as the most frequent group so identified, though “voting citizens of states with a lesser propensity to disenfranchise other residents of the same state” is another sometimes raised), especially for the original text (though even the current text is argued to have only incompletely eradicated that design.) > because the document itself is clear proof that such a statement would be false. No, especially in the case of the original text, it's pretty clear proof that the statement is true.
    - repolfx 8y ago
      Thanks, I hadn't heard of the elastic clause before. I was only referring to the latest version of the text. I know it was racist in the past. But I am not a constitutional scholar, indeed.
- forgottenpass 8y ago
  >Would you say the same about the US constitution? Yes and no. On the goal of establishing the system and structure of a body of government it sits at the top of, I think it was well drafted. But something like commas in 2A, "unreasonable searches" in the 4A, or the commerce clause, not so much. (Although, from a historical article I vaguely recall, the issue was that they weren't unable actually able to settle on the core intent of 4A in the first place and compromised between the "reasonable" and "warrants always required" camps.) >It was designed to be updated and changed, rather than be written in stone. To you, is that the same as saying that it's "poorly drafted" and they knew it? No. Even if they were able to perfectly capture their intent at the time, the ability to change law when their intent changed would be desirable. The more interesting criticism along those lines is saying that judicial review is the sign it's poorly drafted. Either they didn't intend on judicial review and flubbed exceptionally hard, or they did intend on judicial review and knew that the document would need regular clarification for the rest of its existence. And from there you could argue that it's the worst written document ever, because they expected the courts to keep revisiting it's meaning.

wccrawford 8y ago

>The fact that this is regularly and explicitly clarified indicates the original document is poorly drafted. Would you say the same about the US constitution? It was designed to be updated and changed, rather than be written in stone. To you, is that the same as saying that it's "poorly drafted" and they knew it? To most people, I think they feel that's a sign that they were wise enough to know that they couldn't think of everything, and that the document would have to change over time.

repolfx 8y ago
Is that a valid analogy? The US Constitution tries not to be vague, and is extremely clear about its aims. Being updatable is not the same as having a generic "... and anything else that we might consider problematic" clause in it. And the Constitution comes with an infrastructure that is constantly trying to clarify what it means when applied, not a perfect infrastructure for sure, but at least judges and the Supremes understand that their issue is to clarify interpretation and not simply make judgements about individuals on an ad-hoc basis. In other words, nobody argues that the Constitution is dangerous and designed to nail particular groups to the wall, because the document itself is clear proof that such a statement would be false. The CoC that has caused so much drama in other projects needs this kind of "don't worry it won't be abused" disclaimers, largely because the authors didn't actually try to pin themselves down (they didn't want to). It has deliberately vague clauses and the classic "... and anything else inappropriate" tacked on the end, which renders the document meaningless. In addition it is routinely used to attack certain groups but not others. These problems could have been avoided by better drafting, but one suspects it would then not have met the goals of the drafters.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The US Constitution tries not to be vague No, it doesn't. I mean, it tries not to be vague on the points on which a very specific decision was reached, but it equally is deliberately vague on other points. > Being updatable is not the same as having a generic "... and anything else that we might consider problematic" clause in it. On the other hand, it does, for instance, have the Elastic Clause. > In other words, nobody argues that the Constitution is dangerous and designed to nail particular groups to the wall Yes, they regularly do (with “persons of African descent” as the most frequent group so identified, though “voting citizens of states with a lesser propensity to disenfranchise other residents of the same state” is another sometimes raised), especially for the original text (though even the current text is argued to have only incompletely eradicated that design.) > because the document itself is clear proof that such a statement would be false. No, especially in the case of the original text, it's pretty clear proof that the statement is true.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    Thanks, I hadn't heard of the elastic clause before. I was only referring to the latest version of the text. I know it was racist in the past. But I am not a constitutional scholar, indeed.
forgottenpass 8y ago
>Would you say the same about the US constitution? Yes and no. On the goal of establishing the system and structure of a body of government it sits at the top of, I think it was well drafted. But something like commas in 2A, "unreasonable searches" in the 4A, or the commerce clause, not so much. (Although, from a historical article I vaguely recall, the issue was that they weren't unable actually able to settle on the core intent of 4A in the first place and compromised between the "reasonable" and "warrants always required" camps.) >It was designed to be updated and changed, rather than be written in stone. To you, is that the same as saying that it's "poorly drafted" and they knew it? No. Even if they were able to perfectly capture their intent at the time, the ability to change law when their intent changed would be desirable. The more interesting criticism along those lines is saying that judicial review is the sign it's poorly drafted. Either they didn't intend on judicial review and flubbed exceptionally hard, or they did intend on judicial review and knew that the document would need regular clarification for the rest of its existence. And from there you could argue that it's the worst written document ever, because they expected the courts to keep revisiting it's meaning.