5 ms·

I have never understood why people feel strongly about "Code of Conduct" statements. It seems insane to me that someone would profoundly object to guidelines th

I have never understood why people feel strongly about "Code of Conduct" statements. It seems insane to me that someone would profoundly object to guidelines that effectively say "don't be an asshole". But it happens! There are people rage-quitting stackoverflow/stackexchange communities expressly because of they can't abide with the new initiatives/CoC that say one has to be nice and get along with others. I guess this is yet another manifestation of that impulse. Maybe someday someone will write up a psychological analysis of this kind of behavior. I sure don't understand it.

pbowyer 8y ago
> Maybe someday someone will write up a psychological analysis of this kind of behavior. I would like to read that; both what's driving the thinking behind adoption, and the responses. You could apply it to any organisation that requires you to sign up to its rules before joining. > It seems insane to me that someone would profoundly object to guidelines that effectively say "don't be an asshole". Does this help? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18075200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18075200
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  > Does this help? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18075200 Very well put. But I still can't fathom a _real_ situation where CoC would cause me to reconsider participation, let-alone quit and look for alternatives which serve up something like that "Code of Merit". In the high-profile spaces which have implemented CoC's, they've been a reaction to long-established patterns of bad behavior (I am thinking specifically about stackoverflow). It remains to be seen whether the CoC in stackoverflow helps, but I don't think it hurts. In general, I think online communities are much more prone by being overrun with assholes than face-to-face communities. In the case of stackoverflow, they've game-ified the interactions to such an extent that it has become a very weird place to ask a question. In their quest for quantifiable objectivity, they've attracted personality types that think it's OK to be hostile in order to satisfy what they think "the mission" of stackoverflow is. It has gotten bad enough that people are reacting and their new CoC is their attempt at making amends.
gaius 8y ago
understood why people feel strongly about "Code of Conduct" statements Offered as a possible explanation without taking a side: it is because the author of the CoC is perceived as asserting their moral superiority over the others, and the others don’t recognise that person as having earned the right to do so, such as by being a long-standing member of the community with an exemplary track record themselves. The actual content of the CoC isn’t the issue. In the specific case of SO, it’s probably that certain behaviours were actively encouraged by the owners of the site via points and badges, then suddenly they changed their minds. People feel stabbed in the back. I haven’t ragequit anything, this is all just a theory, not direct experience
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
I think it's mostly an objection to authoritarianism, to intolerance under the guise of tolerance, and specifically to the idea that there is a right to not be offended, which implies the right of anyone to prevent speech simply by declaring that they are offended by it, which is seen as a major danger to society and in particular to minorities who don't have the luck of being recognized as a protected class by those who push for these CoCs. Or to put it more succinctly: People see a bait and switch. The superficial language doesn't really seem all that objectionable, but if you look into the ideology behind it, you might find they have a very specific idea of what "don't be an asshole" means that maybe doesn't quite match what you'd expect.
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  > you might find they have a very specific idea of what "don't be an asshole" means that maybe doesn't quite match what you'd expect. I think that's a compelling reason to be skeptical of CoC's but I can't come up with an example where I would be surprised at what "don't be an asshole" actually means to the anyone that wrote the CoC's that seem rather common.
  - brobdingnagians 8y ago
    Being more than superficially religious would qualify. For example, the statement "I support traditional marriage and think it makes for a stronger society". There are lots of people who would scream their heads off in public at someone for simply saying that. There's quite a few examples I can think of...
  - VonGallifrey 8y ago
    Many of the CoC's I have read specifically allow Racism against specific targets and allow sexism against specific targets. In veiled language off course, but it is still there. Even when that stuff isn't there it will be misused to target political "opponents" as we have already seen starting with the Linux CoC.
    - crispyambulance 8y ago

pbowyer 8y ago

> Maybe someday someone will write up a psychological analysis of this kind of behavior. I would like to read that; both what's driving the thinking behind adoption, and the responses. You could apply it to any organisation that requires you to sign up to its rules before joining. > It seems insane to me that someone would profoundly object to guidelines that effectively say "don't be an asshole". Does this help? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18075200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18075200

crispyambulance 8y ago
> Does this help? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18075200 Very well put. But I still can't fathom a _real_ situation where CoC would cause me to reconsider participation, let-alone quit and look for alternatives which serve up something like that "Code of Merit". In the high-profile spaces which have implemented CoC's, they've been a reaction to long-established patterns of bad behavior (I am thinking specifically about stackoverflow). It remains to be seen whether the CoC in stackoverflow helps, but I don't think it hurts. In general, I think online communities are much more prone by being overrun with assholes than face-to-face communities. In the case of stackoverflow, they've game-ified the interactions to such an extent that it has become a very weird place to ask a question. In their quest for quantifiable objectivity, they've attracted personality types that think it's OK to be hostile in order to satisfy what they think "the mission" of stackoverflow is. It has gotten bad enough that people are reacting and their new CoC is their attempt at making amends.

gaius 8y ago

understood why people feel strongly about "Code of Conduct" statements Offered as a possible explanation without taking a side: it is because the author of the CoC is perceived as asserting their moral superiority over the others, and the others don’t recognise that person as having earned the right to do so, such as by being a long-standing member of the community with an exemplary track record themselves. The actual content of the CoC isn’t the issue. In the specific case of SO, it’s probably that certain behaviours were actively encouraged by the owners of the site via points and badges, then suddenly they changed their minds. People feel stabbed in the back. I haven’t ragequit anything, this is all just a theory, not direct experience

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

I think it's mostly an objection to authoritarianism, to intolerance under the guise of tolerance, and specifically to the idea that there is a right to not be offended, which implies the right of anyone to prevent speech simply by declaring that they are offended by it, which is seen as a major danger to society and in particular to minorities who don't have the luck of being recognized as a protected class by those who push for these CoCs. Or to put it more succinctly: People see a bait and switch. The superficial language doesn't really seem all that objectionable, but if you look into the ideology behind it, you might find they have a very specific idea of what "don't be an asshole" means that maybe doesn't quite match what you'd expect.

crispyambulance 8y ago
> you might find they have a very specific idea of what "don't be an asshole" means that maybe doesn't quite match what you'd expect. I think that's a compelling reason to be skeptical of CoC's but I can't come up with an example where I would be surprised at what "don't be an asshole" actually means to the anyone that wrote the CoC's that seem rather common.
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  Being more than superficially religious would qualify. For example, the statement "I support traditional marriage and think it makes for a stronger society". There are lots of people who would scream their heads off in public at someone for simply saying that. There's quite a few examples I can think of...
- VonGallifrey 8y ago
  Many of the CoC's I have read specifically allow Racism against specific targets and allow sexism against specific targets. In veiled language off course, but it is still there. Even when that stuff isn't there it will be misused to target political "opponents" as we have already seen starting with the Linux CoC.
  - crispyambulance 8y ago