4 ms·

>That's precisely the kind of thing that turns people off codes of conduct. https://eev.ee/blog/2016/07/22/on-a-technicality/ https://eev.ee/blog/2016/07/22/on

>That's precisely the kind of thing that turns people off codes of conduct. https://eev.ee/blog/2016/07/22/on-a-technicality/ https://eev.ee/blog/2016/07/22/on-a-technicality/

lmm 3y ago
I don't see that post as a convincing argument for codes of conduct. Indeed it's a pretty good argument for avoiding codes of conduct, e.g. the below: > That’s why I mostly now make quasirules like “don’t be a dick” or “keep your vitriol to your own blog“. The general expectation is still clear, and it’s obvious that I reserve the right to judge individual cases — which, in the case of a small community, is going to happen anyway. Let’s face it: small communities are monarchies, not democracies. > I do have another reason for this, which is based on another observation I’ve made of small communities. I’ve joined a few where I didn’t bother reading the rules, made some conversation, never bothered anyone, and then later discovered that I’d pretty clearly violated a rule. But no one ever pointed it out, and perhaps no one even noticed, because I wasn’t being a dick. > So I concluded that, for a smaller community, the people who need the rules are likely to be people who you don’t want around in the first place. And “don’t be a dick” covers that just as well.
kazinator 3y ago
> The person didn’t break any of the rules — how dare you ban them? Very simple: articulate new rules which cover the behavior, and publish them. Alert the user that their former behavior is now against the rules. Have a meta-rule that anyone who triggers the above workflow more than twice will be banned. There is also this alternative: say that there are hidden rules that are completely unrelated to the written rules, even in "spirit". You can be removed from the community for any reason, without any explanation, by the powers that be, due to any behavior they find displeasing.
- varjag 3y ago
  Very simple: articulate new rules which cover the behavior, and publish them. You essentially argue for common law: an enormous corpus of precedents that is impossible to navigate without dedicated lawyers, is a pain to arbiter and still does not preclude injustice.
  - hkt 3y ago
    To continue the comparison, some of common law's shortcomings can be overcome with an entity like the UK's law commission, eg, rewriting statute (or the code of conduct) to incorporate changes based on new precedent. Which does appear to somewhat be what has happened.
- howenterprisey 3y ago
  Twice? Seems like that'll get argued about endlessly, at the very least.
  - kazinator 3y ago
    Even if so the arguments can get settled, any agreed upon changes made, and the discussion archived. Next time someone runs into it, you have that to point to.

>That's precisely the kind of thing that turns people off codes of conduct. https://eev.ee/blog/2016/07/22/on-a-technicality/ https://eev.ee/blog/2016/07/22/on-a-technicality/

lmm 3y ago

I don't see that post as a convincing argument for codes of conduct. Indeed it's a pretty good argument for avoiding codes of conduct, e.g. the below: > That’s why I mostly now make quasirules like “don’t be a dick” or “keep your vitriol to your own blog“. The general expectation is still clear, and it’s obvious that I reserve the right to judge individual cases — which, in the case of a small community, is going to happen anyway. Let’s face it: small communities are monarchies, not democracies. > I do have another reason for this, which is based on another observation I’ve made of small communities. I’ve joined a few where I didn’t bother reading the rules, made some conversation, never bothered anyone, and then later discovered that I’d pretty clearly violated a rule. But no one ever pointed it out, and perhaps no one even noticed, because I wasn’t being a dick. > So I concluded that, for a smaller community, the people who need the rules are likely to be people who you don’t want around in the first place. And “don’t be a dick” covers that just as well.

kazinator 3y ago

> The person didn’t break any of the rules — how dare you ban them? Very simple: articulate new rules which cover the behavior, and publish them. Alert the user that their former behavior is now against the rules. Have a meta-rule that anyone who triggers the above workflow more than twice will be banned. There is also this alternative: say that there are hidden rules that are completely unrelated to the written rules, even in "spirit". You can be removed from the community for any reason, without any explanation, by the powers that be, due to any behavior they find displeasing.

varjag 3y ago
Very simple: articulate new rules which cover the behavior, and publish them. You essentially argue for common law: an enormous corpus of precedents that is impossible to navigate without dedicated lawyers, is a pain to arbiter and still does not preclude injustice.
- hkt 3y ago
  To continue the comparison, some of common law's shortcomings can be overcome with an entity like the UK's law commission, eg, rewriting statute (or the code of conduct) to incorporate changes based on new precedent. Which does appear to somewhat be what has happened.
howenterprisey 3y ago
Twice? Seems like that'll get argued about endlessly, at the very least.
- kazinator 3y ago
  Even if so the arguments can get settled, any agreed upon changes made, and the discussion archived. Next time someone runs into it, you have that to point to.