3 ms·

AIUI, the point of codes of conduct (when used in good faith) are basically like FAQs or What Wikipedia Is Not[1] in that they're social bludgeons to avoid havi

AIUI, the point of codes of conduct (when used in good faith) are basically like FAQs or What Wikipedia Is Not[1] in that they're social bludgeons to avoid having the same fucking discussion with stubborn idiots, where they do this[2] to cause tedious repetitive arguments of how the project should be run. A code of conduct, AIUI, has two main effects: 1. You have written, formalised proof you can link to that e.g. you're expected to use XYZ pronouns - no tedious offtopic argument that drives people away. 2. If there is a dispute then there's a formal method of bringing up the argument - a feature request or BG report on the CoC. Or more practically, when writing the thing in the first place. And on the subject of whether it's warranted, this article[3]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_... [2] https://xkcd.com/1277/ https://xkcd.com/1277/ [3]https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens-die-by-pacifism https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-...

luckylion 7y ago
when used in good faith is the key part there, though. If everything everybody ever proposed was only used in good faith, we'd be living in Utopia. > You have written, formalised proof you can link to that e.g. you're expected to use XYZ pronouns - no tedious offtopic argument that drives people away. They are usually way too vague to do that. "Be kind" hangs on who decides what is and isn't kind. It's my impression that that is generally by design, because they are supposed to enable selective enforcement.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  It's my impression that that is generally by design, because they are supposed to enable selective enforcement. Indeed. I'm quite certain, for example, that if someone called ESR a toxic lunatic, no code of conduct violation would be found.
rstuart4133 7y ago
> codes of conduct (when used in good faith) All true. In other news guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun can be used in either way. CoC's are like guns in that they can be lethal when deployed. That sounds great to many people: we final have a sure fire way of expelling arsehole's from our group. Unfortunately the CoC's come with an inbuilt defect: they all boil down to "be intolerant of intolerance". That creates wonderful opportunity for attackers, because if they can goad someone in the project to being intolerant towards them they can get the project to shoot itself with it's on weapon. The amazing thing I've never seen a instance where a CoC has been used in anger by a project where hasn't also been used in this way against long standing members of the project. Even worse, the long standing members use it against each other! Introducing a CoC seems to have the same destabilising effect as introducing a new weapon: people rush to use it in what looks to be a pre-emptive strike as soon as some dispute comes around. Maybe that's in an attempt to take out others before they use it against them. It's so predicable it's extraordinary. There must be something deep within the human psyche priming us to seek out weaknesses like this in "enemy groups", along with the inbuilt knowledge of how to it.

luckylion 7y ago

when used in good faith is the key part there, though. If everything everybody ever proposed was only used in good faith, we'd be living in Utopia. > You have written, formalised proof you can link to that e.g. you're expected to use XYZ pronouns - no tedious offtopic argument that drives people away. They are usually way too vague to do that. "Be kind" hangs on who decides what is and isn't kind. It's my impression that that is generally by design, because they are supposed to enable selective enforcement.

xyzzyz 7y ago
It's my impression that that is generally by design, because they are supposed to enable selective enforcement. Indeed. I'm quite certain, for example, that if someone called ESR a toxic lunatic, no code of conduct violation would be found.

rstuart4133 7y ago

> codes of conduct (when used in good faith) All true. In other news guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun can be used in either way. CoC's are like guns in that they can be lethal when deployed. That sounds great to many people: we final have a sure fire way of expelling arsehole's from our group. Unfortunately the CoC's come with an inbuilt defect: they all boil down to "be intolerant of intolerance". That creates wonderful opportunity for attackers, because if they can goad someone in the project to being intolerant towards them they can get the project to shoot itself with it's on weapon. The amazing thing I've never seen a instance where a CoC has been used in anger by a project where hasn't also been used in this way against long standing members of the project. Even worse, the long standing members use it against each other! Introducing a CoC seems to have the same destabilising effect as introducing a new weapon: people rush to use it in what looks to be a pre-emptive strike as soon as some dispute comes around. Maybe that's in an attempt to take out others before they use it against them. It's so predicable it's extraordinary. There must be something deep within the human psyche priming us to seek out weaknesses like this in "enemy groups", along with the inbuilt knowledge of how to it.