4 ms·

> to weaken the specificity and balance of the CoC. This is a feature, not a bug. When the rules are clear and specific, they can be enforced fairly. When they

> to weaken the specificity and balance of the CoC. This is a feature, not a bug. When the rules are clear and specific, they can be enforced fairly. When they're vague and unclear, then the only consistent principle is that the people who "enforce" the "rules" can do whatever they want and you have no recourse or due process.

basilgohar 5y ago
I don't know why you've been downvoted, but anyone that has seen how laws have been selectively enforced since whenever should be able to easily see how this is the case as well. It's the "everyone is guilty of breaking some law" principle, but applied to what is currently considered fashionable good behavior. It's a different kind of slippery slope and we'll know it when the wrong kind of people get into positions where they can enforce these to suit their needs rather than protecting marginalized communities. But speaking out against that will be seen as the same thing as an attack on marginalized, so most folks will either be quiet or move on, and these power-hungry folks will get to keep their fiefdoms.
- undecisive 5y ago
  I absolutely agree about both the impetus and the danger of this currently prevailing viewpoint. I will speak to the motivation however, because I'm a reconcillatory kind of person most of the time, and unlike this CoC I do believe intent is important. I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good, and I believe their adoption is very very bad because those adopting them are blindsided. Because the people writing them are not lawyers, and are not expecting them to be used as laws to be enforced, but as "good feeling reinforcers". Effectively, corporate virtue signalling (and, in some cases probably also personal virtue signalling - with all the negative connotations that brings). The fact is, when you introduce a set of rules, you have to expect those rules to be interpreted by people with some extreme biases, and ensure that the wording produces a fair outcome regardless. It doesn't matter whether you call these rules "guidelines", or a "code", or even a "statement of intent". They will be used as rules, and if they aren't, then what is the point of writing them?
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    > I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good Although that same COC says intend doesn't matter in many cases.
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  This is unfortunately one of those "zombie comments" because the comment you're responding to presently shows no evidence of being downvoted, but I guess it was when you commented. I didn't vote on it either way, but I will say there is some dissonance between an apparent belief that the principle of being maximally charitable in assuming the best of everyone is a principle of discourse worth upholding, but then not doing so yourself.
  - acheron 5y ago
    The difference is that being maximally charitable is the right way to approach normal communication from normal people, but the people who write “CoCs” are known bad actors. You don’t assume good faith from the person that’s assaulting you.
  - MadeThisToReply 5y ago
    FYI: basilgohar's comment was accurate when it was written, since my comment was downvoted at first, but has since been upvoted again.
- simiones 5y ago
  Selective enforcement is exactly proof that the above comment is constructing an irrelevant problem. When the rulers don't like the rules, and there is no mechanism to force them, the rulers simply ignore the rules - they don't need to change the rules. If you have bad rulers and no mechanism to change them, all giving them a perfect rule book to enforce will not produce better outcomes - they will selectively apply and interpret the rules as they want. At best, a good set of rules will make it more obvious that the rulers are acting in bad faith. But the rules themselves can't compel the rulers - only other people can.
undecisive 5y ago
Sadly true. But I reluctantly stop short of attributing that nasty side-effect as a defining goal of the CoC movement, because - you know - I always try to assume good intentions :) (Though, if you feel Hanlon's razor is a better motivator for you, I won't judge)
simiones 5y ago
Rules can be enforced however fairly or not the rulers want. Better rules don't make for better rulers - at best, they make it more obvious when a ruler is not being fair.
- undecisive 5y ago
  Maybe, but I think there are social contracts that you are overlooking. If I write a rule, and then I violate a rule (or refuse to censure someone for violating a rule) then I can be rightly accused of hypocrisy. People believe themselves to be within a certain margin of "good people", and having incontrovertible proof of being "The Biggest Hypocrite" makes them uncomfortable. There are of course those who don't feel that discomfort; there are even those that commit victim-filled crimes without remorse. Often, there are external forces we can lean on to bring those people into line or out of society - and agreed, in the case of Open Source Software communities, those external forces don't always exist or are not reliable for regulating something as insignificant as moderation policies on a mailing list. There are also those that would leverage that discomfort for their own immoral benefit, and bad rules are equally good enablers of that kind of person. But I don't think it's fair to say that the quality of rules is meaningless - if there is any level of accountability in the sub-community of moderators (or in the community as a whole), good fair and enforceable rules have power.

basilgohar 5y ago

I don't know why you've been downvoted, but anyone that has seen how laws have been selectively enforced since whenever should be able to easily see how this is the case as well. It's the "everyone is guilty of breaking some law" principle, but applied to what is currently considered fashionable good behavior. It's a different kind of slippery slope and we'll know it when the wrong kind of people get into positions where they can enforce these to suit their needs rather than protecting marginalized communities. But speaking out against that will be seen as the same thing as an attack on marginalized, so most folks will either be quiet or move on, and these power-hungry folks will get to keep their fiefdoms.

undecisive 5y ago
I absolutely agree about both the impetus and the danger of this currently prevailing viewpoint. I will speak to the motivation however, because I'm a reconcillatory kind of person most of the time, and unlike this CoC I do believe intent is important. I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good, and I believe their adoption is very very bad because those adopting them are blindsided. Because the people writing them are not lawyers, and are not expecting them to be used as laws to be enforced, but as "good feeling reinforcers". Effectively, corporate virtue signalling (and, in some cases probably also personal virtue signalling - with all the negative connotations that brings). The fact is, when you introduce a set of rules, you have to expect those rules to be interpreted by people with some extreme biases, and ensure that the wording produces a fair outcome regardless. It doesn't matter whether you call these rules "guidelines", or a "code", or even a "statement of intent". They will be used as rules, and if they aren't, then what is the point of writing them?
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good Although that same COC says intend doesn't matter in many cases.
nonameiguess 5y ago
This is unfortunately one of those "zombie comments" because the comment you're responding to presently shows no evidence of being downvoted, but I guess it was when you commented. I didn't vote on it either way, but I will say there is some dissonance between an apparent belief that the principle of being maximally charitable in assuming the best of everyone is a principle of discourse worth upholding, but then not doing so yourself.
- acheron 5y ago
  The difference is that being maximally charitable is the right way to approach normal communication from normal people, but the people who write “CoCs” are known bad actors. You don’t assume good faith from the person that’s assaulting you.
- MadeThisToReply 5y ago
  FYI: basilgohar's comment was accurate when it was written, since my comment was downvoted at first, but has since been upvoted again.
simiones 5y ago
Selective enforcement is exactly proof that the above comment is constructing an irrelevant problem. When the rulers don't like the rules, and there is no mechanism to force them, the rulers simply ignore the rules - they don't need to change the rules. If you have bad rulers and no mechanism to change them, all giving them a perfect rule book to enforce will not produce better outcomes - they will selectively apply and interpret the rules as they want. At best, a good set of rules will make it more obvious that the rulers are acting in bad faith. But the rules themselves can't compel the rulers - only other people can.

undecisive 5y ago

Sadly true. But I reluctantly stop short of attributing that nasty side-effect as a defining goal of the CoC movement, because - you know - I always try to assume good intentions :) (Though, if you feel Hanlon's razor is a better motivator for you, I won't judge)

simiones 5y ago

Rules can be enforced however fairly or not the rulers want. Better rules don't make for better rulers - at best, they make it more obvious when a ruler is not being fair.

undecisive 5y ago
Maybe, but I think there are social contracts that you are overlooking. If I write a rule, and then I violate a rule (or refuse to censure someone for violating a rule) then I can be rightly accused of hypocrisy. People believe themselves to be within a certain margin of "good people", and having incontrovertible proof of being "The Biggest Hypocrite" makes them uncomfortable. There are of course those who don't feel that discomfort; there are even those that commit victim-filled crimes without remorse. Often, there are external forces we can lean on to bring those people into line or out of society - and agreed, in the case of Open Source Software communities, those external forces don't always exist or are not reliable for regulating something as insignificant as moderation policies on a mailing list. There are also those that would leverage that discomfort for their own immoral benefit, and bad rules are equally good enablers of that kind of person. But I don't think it's fair to say that the quality of rules is meaningless - if there is any level of accountability in the sub-community of moderators (or in the community as a whole), good fair and enforceable rules have power.