Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on A Code of Conduct, dare I say it

Parent

A Code of Conduct, dare I say it

+10
−0

TL;DR: I've just created a Code of Conduct, and I'd like your feedback on it.

Let's see if we can make a better go of this than Stack Exchange, hey?

It's mostly based on the Community Covenant CoC, with some adaptations to make it make more sense as applied here.

Have a read through, and leave any feedback you have in an answer here. I'll make the document mod-editable, so it's not just me who can make changes to it. While the current state of the document is the sort of thing I'd recommend using, it's up to you exactly how you want it to read - the only strong recommendation I'd make is that some form of CoC is almost always necessary.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+21
−0

I was hoping that our code of conduct could be something closer to the "be nice" model, something like this:

  • Be respectful and polite.
  • Presume everyone else is doing so, too.
  • Be open to constructive feedback.
  • Well-meaning people on a worldwide, multi-cultural platform can accidentally say things that are taken poorly. If you're on either side of such a misunderstanding, presume good faith and try to work it out amicably.
  • We will not tolerate harassment based on any personal characteristic.
  • If you see something, say something (privately in a flag or constructively in public). We take violations seriously and will follow up.

I really don't think we need a bunch of bullet points about what specifically counts as harassment and which special groups we protect and so on. If anybody feels like something abusive is happening, we need to deal with it without getting into rules-lawyering ("you didn't say Pastafarians are off-limits!" or whatever).

Plus, mine's short enough that people who read any of it will read all of it.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (8 comments)
General comments
ArtOfCode‭ wrote almost 5 years ago

Yup, I did wonder about the length of it. One of the things that I have picked up in looking around at this stuff is a general sense that to make groups that are commonly discriminated against feel safe, there needs to be some specific acknowledgement of harassment - not necessarily the giant list of things that's in there, but perhaps adding a bullet point of "we will not tolerate harassment based on any personal characteristic", o.e., would go some way towards that.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote almost 5 years ago

That works. I want to see one bullet point, not one page -- it's disproportionate otherwise. There are all sorts of behaviors that are problematic; expanding at length on one of them is problematic, and expanding on all of them at length is differently-problematic. Let's keep it short and sweet, based on common sense, and empower moderators and the community to say "no, that is Really Not OK" when needed.

AmaiKotori‭ wrote almost 5 years ago · edited almost 5 years ago

I am definitely in favour of brevity in this instance, primarily since those operating in good faith rarely need the specific proscriptions (and can simply be warned/corrected if they do slip up), while those not will only use them as an excuse to rules-lawyer. The main downside of the short version is that it requires more trust in the mods' discretion, and, well, given why we're all here in the first place, I somehow doubt that will be an issue.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote almost 5 years ago

Auditability is the antedote to relying on moderator discretion. So long as (a) other moderators can review and (b) the recipient of a sanction has an escalation path, I think we'll be ok. Granted we don't really have the latter right now (other than a public complaint), but ultimately I hope our site will be part of a network and then there will be oversight of all the sites. (Codidact is intended for networks, not individual sites.)

ArtOfCode‭ wrote almost 5 years ago

I've just updated the CoC - let me know what you think.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote almost 5 years ago

@ArtOfCode much better! Just one thing: please spell out "SFW". I know what it means and you know what it means, but let's not assume every visitor will.

ArtOfCode‭ wrote almost 5 years ago

Ah, good spot - fixed

Jane S‭ wrote almost 5 years ago

I feel the trick behind a good Code of Conduct is to ensure that it is simple. The more lawyer-y it becomes, the less likely it is to actually achieve the desired result. The phrase "Be Nice" covers just about everything. So does "Treat others as you would like to be treated." Adding specifics beyond the underlying intent just allows folk to look for edge cases to exploit.