4 ms·

> In most instances it is not the rules that are the problem, it is the people enforcing the rules that is the problem You need two things for this kind of pro

> In most instances it is not the rules that are the problem, it is the people enforcing the rules that is the problem You need two things for this kind of problem to occur: 1. people who abuse power 2. rules that allow this abuse (in this case the CoC) You cannot change humans, but you can lobby to prevent 2 from happening (in this case lobby against a CoC to become adopted).

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
I disagree; you need rules to give guidelines to the moderators and participants both. The alternative is that there are no rules, or moderators get to decide themselves what is and isn't allowed, on a whim and inconsistenly, causing infighting and confusion. Call it something else than a code of conduct if it helps, but I don't believe you can not have a guideline of sorts.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  This is making the incorrect assumption that moderators are somehow limited by the rules. They're always able to justify anything via sufficiently vague rules ("this isn't an exhaustive list" etc) or even just ignoring the rules and banning people they dislike, because for the most part, people don't notice unless they go after someone well known. All a CoC does is setup the illusion of open and unbiased enforcement. It's like how cops have rules about needing reasonable cause to search vehicles lending them some legitimacy, but they simply have a dog trained to signal for something suspicious even when there isn't anything, allowing them to claim reasonable cause without being able to be questioned.
  - predictabl3 3y ago
    Ah yes. Don't try because it can't be perfect. Better to just leave it up to vague chance. Do y'all even consider what it is you're actually saying? Ever?
teh64 3y ago
But if 2 does not exist, abuse could still continue just by terrible people being in charge. I don't see how adopting or not adopting a CoC allows for people to abuse their power less or more.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

I disagree; you need rules to give guidelines to the moderators and participants both. The alternative is that there are no rules, or moderators get to decide themselves what is and isn't allowed, on a whim and inconsistenly, causing infighting and confusion. Call it something else than a code of conduct if it helps, but I don't believe you can not have a guideline of sorts.

dotnet00 3y ago
This is making the incorrect assumption that moderators are somehow limited by the rules. They're always able to justify anything via sufficiently vague rules ("this isn't an exhaustive list" etc) or even just ignoring the rules and banning people they dislike, because for the most part, people don't notice unless they go after someone well known. All a CoC does is setup the illusion of open and unbiased enforcement. It's like how cops have rules about needing reasonable cause to search vehicles lending them some legitimacy, but they simply have a dog trained to signal for something suspicious even when there isn't anything, allowing them to claim reasonable cause without being able to be questioned.
- predictabl3 3y ago
  Ah yes. Don't try because it can't be perfect. Better to just leave it up to vague chance. Do y'all even consider what it is you're actually saying? Ever?

teh64 3y ago

But if 2 does not exist, abuse could still continue just by terrible people being in charge. I don't see how adopting or not adopting a CoC allows for people to abuse their power less or more.