3 ms·

> Better, IME to make it clear that while you may have some agreed guidelines, moderation isn't going to be according to a legal code. Yes. Some would say, it’

by _gabe_ 3y ago

> Better, IME to make it clear that while you may have some agreed guidelines, moderation isn't going to be according to a legal code. Yes. Some would say, it’s almost like using the spirit of the rules ;) In all seriousness, your theoretical example of why code of conduct can be harmful to a community has nothing to do with the code of conduct. It sounds like it’s just an unhealthy community with unhealthy moderators. Remove the code of conduct and the same scenario would play out. The only difference would be members crying out about how one member was banned for such a reason and another member who did the same thing wasn’t banned. And lastly, in my community at least, it doesn’t come down to personal judgment. Unless a user is spamming or spewing racial slurs, the moderators meet and discuss whether or not the behavior of the user is ban-worthy, temp ban-worthy, or inconsequential (in the former case, the moderator who notices such abrasive action can take immediate action). This way we can at least remove some level of bias by ensuring that there’s consensus. Who knows, my community might just be small enough and inactive enough that I haven’t run into the flaws of the code of conduct. This is all off topic anyways though, so I’ll leave it at that.

lmm 3y ago
> Some would say, it’s almost like using the spirit of the rules ;) Well, yes, but if your "rules" are intended to be applied more as sort of guidelines, then better to call them that and have everyone be on the same page. > In all seriousness, your theoretical example of why code of conduct can be harmful to a community has nothing to do with the code of conduct. It sounds like it’s just an unhealthy community with unhealthy moderators. Remove the code of conduct and the same scenario would play out. It's not a theoretical example, it's a real experience from a community I was part of, and the breakdown happened immediately after the code was introduced. Bad moderators will be bad with or without a code and good moderators will be good with or without a code, but in reality most moderators are somewhere in the middle, and these details can make a difference on the margin. Just like even though locks don't stop professional thieves, locking your door makes a big difference as most theft is opportunistic. > Unless a user is spamming or spewing racial slurs, the moderators meet and discuss whether or not the behavior of the user is ban-worthy, temp ban-worthy, or inconsequential (in the former case, the moderator who notices such abrasive action can take immediate action). This way we can at least remove some level of bias by ensuring that there’s consensus. That kind of process sounds like a good thing. IME thinking through and tuning the procedures of how you moderate is a lot more productive than spending time codifying the "what" that you think you're moderating.

by _gabe_ 3y ago

lmm 3y ago

> Some would say, it’s almost like using the spirit of the rules ;) Well, yes, but if your "rules" are intended to be applied more as sort of guidelines, then better to call them that and have everyone be on the same page. > In all seriousness, your theoretical example of why code of conduct can be harmful to a community has nothing to do with the code of conduct. It sounds like it’s just an unhealthy community with unhealthy moderators. Remove the code of conduct and the same scenario would play out. It's not a theoretical example, it's a real experience from a community I was part of, and the breakdown happened immediately after the code was introduced. Bad moderators will be bad with or without a code and good moderators will be good with or without a code, but in reality most moderators are somewhere in the middle, and these details can make a difference on the margin. Just like even though locks don't stop professional thieves, locking your door makes a big difference as most theft is opportunistic. > Unless a user is spamming or spewing racial slurs, the moderators meet and discuss whether or not the behavior of the user is ban-worthy, temp ban-worthy, or inconsequential (in the former case, the moderator who notices such abrasive action can take immediate action). This way we can at least remove some level of bias by ensuring that there’s consensus. That kind of process sounds like a good thing. IME thinking through and tuning the procedures of how you moderate is a lot more productive than spending time codifying the "what" that you think you're moderating.