4 ms·

It seems some people need to re-read the title and article and consider the words "heavy", "bureaucratic" and the like No, CoCs - or rules in general - are not

by squigz 1y ago

It seems some people need to re-read the title and article and consider the words "heavy", "bureaucratic" and the like No, CoCs - or rules in general - are not inherently bad. HN has some, which the moderators and the community enforce well, and it's generally one of the best platforms on the Internet for intelligent discussion. Yes, heavy CoCs can be weaponized and abused, if there is little or no trust between the community and its leaders. But with or without a CoC, such a community will always be prone to such abuse. You think moderators need to establish a CoC to push their politics on people if they want? How does that even make sense? Why not just... do that, without a CoC?

yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
> You think moderators need to establish a CoC to push their politics on people if they want? How does that even make sense? Why not just... do that, without a CoC? I don't think this is what generally happens, or what people are wary of. I think group participants [sometimes] coerce moderators into establishing a CoC in order to have a tool to reach for in service of silencing voices they regard as "problematic".
- squigz 1y ago
  > silencing voices they regard as "problematic". I'm going to push past this extraordinarily bad faith framing. I'm going to assume you're referring to people who are made to feel uncomfortable or are harassed by other members of the community. So if that community doesn't have a CoC, and those members talk to the moderators, and the moderators take action... is that coercion too? Is that the moderators or those members pushing their political views on the community? Should the moderators just not do anything?
  - yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
    > I'm going to assume you're referring to people who are made to feel uncomfortable or are harassed by other members of the community. It has been my experience that there are both members of groups typically regarded as marginalised who have been harrassed, and also members of groups typically regarded as marginalised who harass others. There are surely more variations of this too. My most recent experience of this was a member of a group typically regarded as marginalised harassing one of my colleagues — who is also a member of a group typically regarded as marginalised, but perhaps less so if you subscribe to the legitimacy of intersectionality — at a software development conference with an established CoC. The incident was reported, and the repercussions for the harasser amounted to exactly nil. > So if that community doesn't have a CoC, and those members talk to the moderators, and the moderators take action... is that coercion too? No. > Is that the moderators or those members pushing their political views on the community? That really depends on the circumstance. > Should the moderators just not do anything? Moderators should take action on CoC violations as proportionately, fairly, and impartially as they can. > I'm going to push past this extraordinarily bad faith framing. It is extraordinarily tiring and depressing that anything proffered that contradicts the orthodoxy of the culture that most readily endorses the establishment of CoCs is immediately dismissed as an argument in "bad faith".
    - squigz 1y ago
      It's likewise tiring and depressing that you framed everybody who wants CoCs the way you did. > No. Then I'm not sure why it would be coercion for them to talk to the moderators about writing down the rules.
      - yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
        It's strange — I wrote "sometimes", and you wrote "everybody". If I had meant "everybody", I would not have written "sometimes".
  - JuniperMesos 1y ago
    Yes, claiming to feel harassed or uncomfortable by other people with the aim of forcing a moderator to threaten them with expulsion from the space if they don't recant a political statement is absolutely, 100% a way that many people attempt to push their political views on a community. Making any judgment at all about what moderators should do in this situation is equivalent to asking moderators to take sides in the political conflict at hand.
- HankStallone 1y ago
  Often the moderator is the project lead (or one of them), who may not be suited to adjudicating personal disputes and probably has better things to do. That can result in siding with the louder faction in the hopes that giving them what they want will satisfy them and let everyone get back to work. Or worse, turning the job of moderation over to them because they seem to want it, and then the petty tyranny is off to the races. I think that happens less now that people are aware of the danger; but a decade or so ago it was a real problem because no one saw it coming.
ricardobeat 1y ago
A written code of conduct can legitimize petty disputes based on interpretations of the text, even if the issue itself is something easily addressable like using the word “master” in a programming context. It can become a tool for manipulation (pushing someone out for “CoC violation” vs simply correcting the wording).
- squigz 1y ago
  I don't see how that is an issue with CoCs. Those people would still try this with or without a CoC - whether the moderators/maintainer acquiesce is the real issue, and, again, is separate from having a CoC.
  - majorchord 1y ago
    > Those people would still try this with or without a CoC Perhaps, but I think it may make the moderator more likely to side with the abuser if they are able to point to a specific part of the CoC that is allegedly being violated, even if that requires colorful interpretation.

by squigz 1y ago

yakshaving_jgt 1y ago

> You think moderators need to establish a CoC to push their politics on people if they want? How does that even make sense? Why not just... do that, without a CoC? I don't think this is what generally happens, or what people are wary of. I think group participants [sometimes] coerce moderators into establishing a CoC in order to have a tool to reach for in service of silencing voices they regard as "problematic".

squigz 1y ago
> silencing voices they regard as "problematic". I'm going to push past this extraordinarily bad faith framing. I'm going to assume you're referring to people who are made to feel uncomfortable or are harassed by other members of the community. So if that community doesn't have a CoC, and those members talk to the moderators, and the moderators take action... is that coercion too? Is that the moderators or those members pushing their political views on the community? Should the moderators just not do anything?
- yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
  > I'm going to assume you're referring to people who are made to feel uncomfortable or are harassed by other members of the community. It has been my experience that there are both members of groups typically regarded as marginalised who have been harrassed, and also members of groups typically regarded as marginalised who harass others. There are surely more variations of this too. My most recent experience of this was a member of a group typically regarded as marginalised harassing one of my colleagues — who is also a member of a group typically regarded as marginalised, but perhaps less so if you subscribe to the legitimacy of intersectionality — at a software development conference with an established CoC. The incident was reported, and the repercussions for the harasser amounted to exactly nil. > So if that community doesn't have a CoC, and those members talk to the moderators, and the moderators take action... is that coercion too? No. > Is that the moderators or those members pushing their political views on the community? That really depends on the circumstance. > Should the moderators just not do anything? Moderators should take action on CoC violations as proportionately, fairly, and impartially as they can. > I'm going to push past this extraordinarily bad faith framing. It is extraordinarily tiring and depressing that anything proffered that contradicts the orthodoxy of the culture that most readily endorses the establishment of CoCs is immediately dismissed as an argument in "bad faith".
  - squigz 1y ago
    It's likewise tiring and depressing that you framed everybody who wants CoCs the way you did. > No. Then I'm not sure why it would be coercion for them to talk to the moderators about writing down the rules.
    - yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
      It's strange — I wrote "sometimes", and you wrote "everybody". If I had meant "everybody", I would not have written "sometimes".
- JuniperMesos 1y ago
  Yes, claiming to feel harassed or uncomfortable by other people with the aim of forcing a moderator to threaten them with expulsion from the space if they don't recant a political statement is absolutely, 100% a way that many people attempt to push their political views on a community. Making any judgment at all about what moderators should do in this situation is equivalent to asking moderators to take sides in the political conflict at hand.
HankStallone 1y ago
Often the moderator is the project lead (or one of them), who may not be suited to adjudicating personal disputes and probably has better things to do. That can result in siding with the louder faction in the hopes that giving them what they want will satisfy them and let everyone get back to work. Or worse, turning the job of moderation over to them because they seem to want it, and then the petty tyranny is off to the races. I think that happens less now that people are aware of the danger; but a decade or so ago it was a real problem because no one saw it coming.

ricardobeat 1y ago

A written code of conduct can legitimize petty disputes based on interpretations of the text, even if the issue itself is something easily addressable like using the word “master” in a programming context. It can become a tool for manipulation (pushing someone out for “CoC violation” vs simply correcting the wording).

squigz 1y ago
I don't see how that is an issue with CoCs. Those people would still try this with or without a CoC - whether the moderators/maintainer acquiesce is the real issue, and, again, is separate from having a CoC.
- majorchord 1y ago
  > Those people would still try this with or without a CoC Perhaps, but I think it may make the moderator more likely to side with the abuser if they are able to point to a specific part of the CoC that is allegedly being violated, even if that requires colorful interpretation.