Related discussion on the Codidact forum: https://forum.codidact.org/t/proposed-code-of-conduct/462/95?u=cellio. It's a long thread; I've linked to the message that quotes the latest version (proposed by Art). This is proposed language for the Codidact network (specifically, the one this group of developers hosts). I've argued there that the baseline should be light and sites are free to augment with concerns specific to them, like religion sites might have some additional expectations.

So here's the thing. I believe a clause covering harassment is necessary, because it ensures that it's there for those who insist on following the rules to the letter, and because it's a valuable thing to have for some folks. I think we disagree there, but that's okay. [1/?]

On an orthogonal issue - this isn't my community. I've never participated in Writing, and I'm here only as a facilitator, so I don't want to force things on the community here that y'all don't want. On the other hand, if this site is likely to move to the Codidact software when that's available, that may come under Codidact's code of conduct, which may be different from something y'all come up with independently. [2/?]

Strikes me that the best option here is to leave it up to the Writing mods - i.e. the people who are heavily invested in this community - to decide which course is best for the community here. (cc'ing @MonicaCellio here.) [3/3]

@ArtOfCode, I was just reading through the thread that Monica pointed to, and as I was reading it, it occurred to me that there is a certain futility in trying to establish rules of conduct that people are asked to agree to up front and which they can then appeal to in cases of dispute. For me, as least, it puts me in the position of saying, can I subscribe to every implication of this code, and the answer for me is often no, as it was in the SE case.

Now, it is vanishing unlikely that I would ever have done anything to violate that code, but by being forced to accept that code, I was forced to subscribe to the ideology behind that code and that, on one particular point, I could not do. Most people would not scruple about it as it do, but a significant number did in the SE case.

On the other hand, I would have no problem with a site that said, "This is my site and I reserve the right to delete anything I don't like and kick off anyone I don't like, and here are my general principles, just so you know. You have zero rights, and you make zero promises. You are here at my indulgence."

The site owner is entirely within their rights to do that. It is the same principle on which I invite people into my house. It leaves no wiggle room for barrack room lawyers, and it forces no one to take an ideological test to join.

@Mark Baker I generally disagree with a lot of what you say, which (I think) you are well aware of. But you have dropped what I think are a few gems, and this is certainly one of them. I agree 100%. Well said.

... That being said, the only 'loophole' I see here is if the idea in question involves a certain party of people, and then someone starts to really unload on that particular party. Technically, it's not harassment, since the idea is being addressed (and as long as the 'unloader' keeps it general and not personal). But the 'unloader' could get really nasty about it, and anyone in that certain party would definitely feel harassed, and probably feel inclined to harass back.

@ThomasMyron that is the fundamental problem with the notion of harassment. There is the intent to harass and the feeling of being harrassed. An argument might be advanced passionately, in the heat of argument, with no intent other than to prove the point at issue, which might make certain parties feel that they have been harrassed. Intent is not provable.

And someone may feel harrassed by even the most innocent and innocuous of comments that just happens to fall on an already raw nerve that the speaker could not possible have known about. People also can and do claim to be harrassed solely for the purpose of shutting down a contrary opinion.

A policy that says no harassment must be intended is unenforceable. A policy that says no harassment must ever be felt is impossible to comply with. That's where the loophole lies, and it is a loophole in human nature that no code of conduct, however worded, can ever close.

@MarkBaker So... probably our best bet would be to just acknowledge the loophole in the CoC and leave it up to a moderator's call then? That's about the only thing I can think of. Also, we are discussing this over on the Discord if you want to join in. The link is in my profile over on SE.

@ThomasMyron What cannot be legislated must be adjudicated, and what must be adjudicated depends on the character and principles of the Judge. There is no way around this. This too is the human condition. In the end, thought, admitting this can result in a less restrictive covenant.

When I'm moderating and somebody raises concerns about something, I ask myself if the discussion is necessary. I mean, if somebody's talking smack about a group (any group) in a chat room about, say, technical writing, that's pretty easy -- this is off-topic, someone's uncomfortable, let's chill please. It doesn't even have to be harassment; it might just be squicky. (1/2)

The challenges come up when the discussion is relevant and someone feels uncomfortable; in those cases the focus should be on how we talk about the topic, and a mod might need to remind people about depersonalizing etc. (2/2)

@MonicaCellio, exactly. And that comes down to where authority lies. Does authority lie in the moderator or in the code. If authority lies in the mod, there is no arguing with the decision. If it lies in the code, then there is endless ground for arguing about the decision of the mod.

My point, as in the SE case, is that if I am required to subscribe to a code, I have to look at that code as a whole and decide if I can subscribe to all it implications and assumptions. In the case of SE, I could not, even though the chances that I would ever have actually violated it are extremely remote.

But if when I sign up I am told that Monica is in charge and here is what she will tolerate and what she won't, that's much easier. It does not require me to agree to your principles. It just tells me that if you don't like what I say, you will shut me down. Agreeing to submit to authority is much less onerous than being required to subscribe to principles.