5 ms·

It depends on the purpose of the group. There are lots of 18+ groups that discourage politics, and lots more where no profanity is expected. As long as there ar

It depends on the purpose of the group. There are lots of 18+ groups that discourage politics, and lots more where no profanity is expected. As long as there are other different groups where those are allowed, everything is OK.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
This. In any group you will need to agree on a set of rules about these things. A Code of Conduct doesn't change that, just makes it explicit. The reason that Codes of Conduct are good is that it makes the life of an organiser so much easier. If Bob is being weird around the ladies (again), then an organiser can take him to one side and point to the "no being weird around the ladies" clause in the CoC. This is a massively easier discussion than without the CoC, where they would have to explain to Bob that his behaviour around the ladies was causing them distress, etc. Yes, this includes "grey" areas, because it involves human feelings and emotions. Charles might behave in a similar manner to Bob, but not be "weird" about it, and people find him funny not creepy. Therefore he's not breaking the "don't be weird around the ladies" rule. That's down to human perception, unfortunately for Bob. But that rule already existed, and was already "grey". Without the CoC, the organiser would still need to take Bob to one side and have the chat. Because weirding out the female members of the group is a dick move regardless. And Charles would still get a pass because he wasn't being weird. The CoC hasn't changed anything, just made it explicit.
- detaro 6y ago
  It also makes an explicit commitment by the organizer that they'll react in some way to complaints covered by the CoC, and tells people how/where to make such complaints. I.e. if an organizer ignores something, they can be pointed to "but you committed to upholding these rules for your event".
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    yes, good point :)
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > Charles might behave in a similar manner to Bob, but not be "weird" about it, and people find him funny not creepy. So it's all down to the interpretation (of both the CoC, and whether behaviour falls within it) of the organiser? Especially under such vague standards as "being weird" or "being creepy? This sound like the exact problem with CoCs. And the "rule-breaking" aspect goes both ways. It's eventually a way to streamline the process by shutting down group dissent. Work fine if the rules, and their enforcement are just; not so much otherwise. > But that rule already existed, and was already "grey" No it didn't. The reasoning behind the rule did, but not the rule. Once the rule exists people can appeal to the rule directly without considering the reasoning behind it; Much like arguing that abortion is bad because it is murder, without reconsidering why murder is bad in the first place and re-engaging with that logic in the context of abortion.
  - TuringTest 6y ago
    > It's eventually a way to streamline the process by shutting down group dissent. Work fine if the rules, and their enforcement are just; not so much otherwise. What you're missing is that this is something that will happen anyway, explicit CoC or not. Someone with power will always be in a position to judge the rules and enforce them in his own way on someone without power, by definition. But if there is an explicit code, you are warned in advance of the actions that will more likely trigger enforcement, instead of finding them after the fact. Therefore, you can decide to avoid those actions, or avoid the event entirely. In some ways, an explicit CoC is giving more power to participants over the organizer, not the opposite.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      > Someone with power will always be in a position to judge True, but maybe a CoC gave them that power. A CoC is a sufficient-but-not-necessary condition for such abuses. > an explicit CoC is giving more power to participants In the sense that it gives an opportunity to self police. The biggest army never needs to fight.
Chris2048 6y ago
I was part of a group that had a policy of apolitical(ity) Until a topic (think BLM kind) came along that people thought should be an exception; The usual arguments: this wasn't politics, this was basic human rights / existence; It was offensive not to allow, is was oppression to not discuss. Basically, enough people cared more about <topic> than their continued membership, or even the continued existence/stability of the group, that may become fractured by <topic>, that they where willing to leave and make a big stink about doing so, enough to potentially give the group a bad reputation, and leveraged this threat against the policy.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  That's politics. If social norms change and you want your group to have continued legitimacy, you may need to change with them. Not having a code of conduct doesn't make things any different.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    What "social norms change" require groups wishing to be apolitical to not be, except the most extreme? The you'd describe being apolitical as not being "legitimate" is chilling.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Put another way, if as a leader you don't take time to recognize the priorities of those whom you are responsible for, they'll eventually revolt. In some sense, what I'm saying is that it's not possible to be apolitical. Politics is just lens through which we analyze human interaction. You can't have social groups without politics. If you mean specifically "politics" in the US democratic/republican party sense, that's in theory a more attainable goal, but keep in mind that under that definition you excuse what is objectively bad behavior (IBM supporting the Nazis, as an example). Not to mention that the political parties in some sense have a vested interest in making things that shouldn't be political issues "political". And you also get into the question of what is political? Are facts political? Is saying "black people are killed by police at a higher rate than white people" political? You're ultimately just advocating for a different form of censorship, which is fraught with all the same problems as any other form, but additionally with the duty to appear unbiased in how you define what is or isn't political. That's an inherently conservative position to take. Which you should recognize if you want to take it.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

This. In any group you will need to agree on a set of rules about these things. A Code of Conduct doesn't change that, just makes it explicit. The reason that Codes of Conduct are good is that it makes the life of an organiser so much easier. If Bob is being weird around the ladies (again), then an organiser can take him to one side and point to the "no being weird around the ladies" clause in the CoC. This is a massively easier discussion than without the CoC, where they would have to explain to Bob that his behaviour around the ladies was causing them distress, etc. Yes, this includes "grey" areas, because it involves human feelings and emotions. Charles might behave in a similar manner to Bob, but not be "weird" about it, and people find him funny not creepy. Therefore he's not breaking the "don't be weird around the ladies" rule. That's down to human perception, unfortunately for Bob. But that rule already existed, and was already "grey". Without the CoC, the organiser would still need to take Bob to one side and have the chat. Because weirding out the female members of the group is a dick move regardless. And Charles would still get a pass because he wasn't being weird. The CoC hasn't changed anything, just made it explicit.

detaro 6y ago
It also makes an explicit commitment by the organizer that they'll react in some way to complaints covered by the CoC, and tells people how/where to make such complaints. I.e. if an organizer ignores something, they can be pointed to "but you committed to upholding these rules for your event".
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  yes, good point :)
Chris2048 6y ago
> Charles might behave in a similar manner to Bob, but not be "weird" about it, and people find him funny not creepy. So it's all down to the interpretation (of both the CoC, and whether behaviour falls within it) of the organiser? Especially under such vague standards as "being weird" or "being creepy? This sound like the exact problem with CoCs. And the "rule-breaking" aspect goes both ways. It's eventually a way to streamline the process by shutting down group dissent. Work fine if the rules, and their enforcement are just; not so much otherwise. > But that rule already existed, and was already "grey" No it didn't. The reasoning behind the rule did, but not the rule. Once the rule exists people can appeal to the rule directly without considering the reasoning behind it; Much like arguing that abortion is bad because it is murder, without reconsidering why murder is bad in the first place and re-engaging with that logic in the context of abortion.
- TuringTest 6y ago
  > It's eventually a way to streamline the process by shutting down group dissent. Work fine if the rules, and their enforcement are just; not so much otherwise. What you're missing is that this is something that will happen anyway, explicit CoC or not. Someone with power will always be in a position to judge the rules and enforce them in his own way on someone without power, by definition. But if there is an explicit code, you are warned in advance of the actions that will more likely trigger enforcement, instead of finding them after the fact. Therefore, you can decide to avoid those actions, or avoid the event entirely. In some ways, an explicit CoC is giving more power to participants over the organizer, not the opposite.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    > Someone with power will always be in a position to judge True, but maybe a CoC gave them that power. A CoC is a sufficient-but-not-necessary condition for such abuses. > an explicit CoC is giving more power to participants In the sense that it gives an opportunity to self police. The biggest army never needs to fight.

Chris2048 6y ago

I was part of a group that had a policy of apolitical(ity) Until a topic (think BLM kind) came along that people thought should be an exception; The usual arguments: this wasn't politics, this was basic human rights / existence; It was offensive not to allow, is was oppression to not discuss. Basically, enough people cared more about <topic> than their continued membership, or even the continued existence/stability of the group, that may become fractured by <topic>, that they where willing to leave and make a big stink about doing so, enough to potentially give the group a bad reputation, and leveraged this threat against the policy.

joshuamorton 6y ago
That's politics. If social norms change and you want your group to have continued legitimacy, you may need to change with them. Not having a code of conduct doesn't make things any different.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  What "social norms change" require groups wishing to be apolitical to not be, except the most extreme? The you'd describe being apolitical as not being "legitimate" is chilling.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Put another way, if as a leader you don't take time to recognize the priorities of those whom you are responsible for, they'll eventually revolt. In some sense, what I'm saying is that it's not possible to be apolitical. Politics is just lens through which we analyze human interaction. You can't have social groups without politics. If you mean specifically "politics" in the US democratic/republican party sense, that's in theory a more attainable goal, but keep in mind that under that definition you excuse what is objectively bad behavior (IBM supporting the Nazis, as an example). Not to mention that the political parties in some sense have a vested interest in making things that shouldn't be political issues "political". And you also get into the question of what is political? Are facts political? Is saying "black people are killed by police at a higher rate than white people" political? You're ultimately just advocating for a different form of censorship, which is fraught with all the same problems as any other form, but additionally with the duty to appear unbiased in how you define what is or isn't political. That's an inherently conservative position to take. Which you should recognize if you want to take it.