John Darrington <j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> writes: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 01:02:15PM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > > There is nothing in the current coc which I particularly disagree with - > all the examples of unacceptable conduct I personally consider unacceptable > in all walks of life. > > Unfortunately, ???be excellent to each other??? is not a CoC, and it's > often an excuse not to have one. > > I can think of two much better "excuses" : > > > The first is: > > What hurts me when somebody shoves a "code-of-conduct" in my face, is the > veiled > suggestion that lies behind it. Viz: "You might be a person who habitually > uses > sexually explicit language, insults people, harrasses others, assaults > people, > ... murders them ..."
The COC is there for everyone; I don't see why anybody should take it personally and feel accused of anything. > Of course, on a literal level this suggestion is correct, for a person who > has never > met me, for all they know I might be a person who does those things. But why > accuse a person of those things on the first introduction? > > The second is: > > By having an explicit coc, the explicit message is "Examples of unacceptable > behavior by participants include ..." The implicit message which is a logical > consequence is: "... and we anticipate or have already experienced such > behaviour by participants." Sure. We're on the Internet. :-) > When I invite someone to my home for coffee, I do have a "code of conduct" I > expect my guests to be resonably polite, not to insult me, not to vandalise > my > home, fart in my face and lots of other things. But I this "code of conduct" > is > implicit. I don't write it down. I don't ask my guests to agree to it > before > they enter my home - if I did I would not be suprised if the very suggestion > would cause them to be extremely offended. I would not blame them if they > excused themselves and departed without delay. Likewise I think these "codes > of > conduct" in community projects do not have the effect of welcoming people. > They > have the opposite effect. There's the point that things are different on the Internet, and then there's a point to be made about one-to-one or small-group meetings where bad behavior will stick out immediately vs. large conventions where bad behavior might remain undetected. Having a COC gives a guarantee to participants that if they personally have a bad experience, they can bring it up to the organizers and action *will* be taken. The same principle applies to a large online community. > So lets HAVE a code of conduct. But let's not have a written one. Let's be > open > and inviting. If somebody does come in and start > harassing/insulting/sexually > assaulting/ people (which I think unlikely) we'll uninvite them. > > J' Taylan
