[rdtsc]

I don't understand. The people who are -1, what do they care if it is adopted? Is CoC that controversial? Are personal attacks, doxing, trolling and slurs part of their daily routine they will be seriously inconvenienced by inability to use them?

---

* The use of sexualized language or imagery

* Personal attacks

* Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments

* Public or private harassment

* Publishing other's private information, such as physical or electronic addresses, without explicit permission

* Other unethical or unprofessional conduct

---

As a maintainer they should have just said "There is a CoC now. Check it out: <link>. Happy new year everyone".

[SFjulie1]

I have been partly and admin of a urban terror server for years with my team.

This game has always been a troll magnet of milfan boys with too much testosterone. I was one of them, except I had a girl's name.

By kick/banning appropriately with clear reasons we (as a team), we made even women and teens feel welcome (shit happens). I kicked/banned consistently people for personal reasons (I don't like discriminating people). I also kicked/banned other people because they were not enjoyable. So were the others doing. We never asked permission to have a server we would enjoy ourselves playing, we were paying for it. And it was bringing people. And it was fun for everybody, even women and kids.

CoC is just an excuse for failure and lacking balls and that thinking just being "the owner of a digital place" makes you a leader.

Money, title, even skills don't make you a leader. Just succeeding in leading.

[Nadya]

A CoC lets people stretch something to fall under it to get someone else punished if enforced properly and by the letter.

If it isn't enforced by the letter - why does any of this bullshit need to be mentioned? If someone's being a dick, they'll be addressed and dealt with for being a dick. No CoC needed.

What is the difference between the following two statements?

"We've received a complaint that could be construed as violating Section 3 Subsection B of the CoC. So I'm going to have to ask you to quit it or leave."

"You're being an ass. Quit it or leave."

[michaelmior]

People have different definitions of what constitutes acceptable conduct. A CoC acknowledges this and takes some steps to make sure people are on the same page. Even if it isn't enforced to the letter, some people need a reminder. I think there's also a hope (maybe not true in practice) that having a CoC is a positive signal to people who feel marginalized in other communities.

[rdtsc]

> What is the difference between the following two statements?

Nothing, I like the second. And the second one will be used anyway. But I was talking here more about the people who gave it a -1. Maintainer spent his personal time and put some work into creating a guide. So let the guide be.

If it is not enforced, it is not enforced. It will just stay there. If it is enforced I might help people kick abusers off a mailing list or IRC channel.

Perhaps I would understand if it was a question of well we don't have a guide, how wants to come up with one, or let's go write one. Then perhaps discussion its value vs time it takes to get it edited and committed might be in order. But if it is already done, just adopt it. There is nothing onerous or crazy in there.

If it doesn't work or causes terrible problem down the road -- throw it away.

[VLM]

Its philosophical. Note how you discuss if the CoC is controversial, not the maintainer wanting to enforce it, or how you phrase it as "there is a CoC" rather than "the maintainer will apply force as necessary".

Folks with agency or autonomy will personally act to eliminate harassment, without need for rules, for example. Troll on my turf, I will ban you. Not some set of rules taking action, a human (that being me) will exert authority (that being the mighty banhammer) and that's how it will be. There are no abstract rules or rule lawyering involved.

The CoC view is passively sugar coating some abstract set of rules which will enforce itself, kinda. Its very weird because the person applying the CoC is too passive and has too little agency to, say, wield the banhammer and eliminate the threat without need of formal rules and regulations. Yet, has enough agency to force everyone else to work under a CoC, which simultaneously implies the same people that can't autonomously be trusted to exhibit common sense will none the less be forced by the rules to apply the rules they were too timid to apply by themselves without the CoC. Its very weird logic twisting.

If you trust individual leaders, the CoC is useless because the have the agency to wield the banhammer with no need for rules. If you don't trust the leaders, the CoC is useless because they won't enforce it.

So what is the use of a CoC? Well, for one thing instead of banhammer swinging we can raise awareness and have a debating party about what violates the abstract rules. No one can be kicked out without a long painful debate. Its a rule's lawyer's paradise rather than a developers paradise.

CoC's are very passive, someone else will enforce the rules. That paradoxically leads to worse behavior. Pretending you're not in a benign despotism merely confuses and slows down necessary responses by all concerned.

Its sort of a generic opposition to all that is Dilbertian, along the lines of not requiring casual IRC / SMS message conversations to be conducted as per "Robert's Rules of Order" Its not that the rules are in themselves bad, its that if you think you need Roberts Rules of Order for IRC something is hopelessly off the tracks and you can only hope you don't show up as a satire in a Dilbert or xkcd cartoon.

Maybe a bad bar analogy is the bartender tosses out obnoxious drunks. Installing a set of formal rules that drunkards must be formally recognized by the chair of the meeting before speaking as per Roberts Rules and if you don't then an abstract someone should toss you out implies you're probably in one messed up bar.

[rdtsc]

> So what is the use of a CoC?

In this case the use is that the maintainer took the time to create it. You can argue that it is useless. Even the maintainer seem to largely agree. So why not have it? It is already there. Why show negativity.

A CoC is a bit like a trademark. To be useful it has to be enforced. So it can just sit there, and if nobody bothers to look at, it will just occupy some extra bytes on some server (Github).

> That paradoxically leads to worse behavior.

Yeah, it might be right. But it is a hypothetical. Let's think of a positive hypothetical upside -- for example the first thing comes to mind is it sends a message to minorities, women, those who are shy, beginners that this project is approachable. We are attempting to be sensitive and welcoming by at least spending time to create a CoC. It is a general message perhaps as well "We are aware these kind bad things happen in the programming community so we did something about". That's it.

[hsod]

People resent being regulated, even if that regulation has no practical effect on their behavior. Most people who are nice are nice because they choose to be. Having someone come in and tell you "you better be nice or else" is kind of insulting and robs you of a bit of agency. I think that's a natural human reaction.

That being said, I'm generally in favor of Codes of Conduct because I think the good they do outweighs the bad. But I don't buy your argument that it's a totally neutral document and people should just not vote because it's "already there".

[nitrogen]

it sends a message

Does that actually work?

[rdtsc]

> Does that actually work?

Don't know that's why I said it was "a positive hypothetical upside". It was in response to gp post about "well what if it has a has a negative effect somehow". So I just replied with an equally un-substantiated claim "Well it could have a positive effect too".

[tibiapejagala]

>Are personal attacks, doxing, trolling and slurs part of their daily routine they will be seriously inconvenienced by inability to use them?

Just because they don't agree with having CoC doesn't mean they do anything CoC disallows. The same with people fighting for free speech or freedom of association - at least one of them is not a hate speech using KKK member.

Nice passive-aggressive personal attack though. Maybe CoC isn't that bad idea after all.

[bobcostas55]

It's purely a signaling issue, the text of the CoC is completely irrelevant.

[rdtsc]

> It's purely a signaling issue, the text of the CoC is completely irrelevant.

That's what I am thinking. Why not signal that "yeah these issues exist, we took 10 minutes to create some guide and put it on Github or some place". I understand if it wasn't already done, and its usefulness has to be weighed against the time it takes to do it. But it was already done. Just approve it and move on. Why drive-by and throw -1's out of the window at it.

[TeMPOraL]

What do you mean by "-1"?

RE signaling issue - those people who are opposed to CoC are reacting because the CoC trend did not appeared from nowhere - it's the result of the SJW narrative that's been spreading around the Internet. So by accepting the CoC they feel they're legitimizing (what they perceive as) the culture of outrage and censorship that hides beneath the talk of preventing abuse.

[rdtsc]

See the original proposal in the mailing list. The maintainer drafted the CoC contents. Shared the link. Asked people what they thought. A lot of them simply replied back with -1. Some explained their choice, but a lot didn't.

[protomyth]

I would guess because it can become dangerous to one's career to explain in these circumstances but they believe it to be a bad thing. -1 is a vote. The more words you put down the easier it is the interpret what you say in the worst possible way.

Heck, following the wrong person on Twitter gets you on a ban list, so expressing opposition at all should be taken seriously.

[Torgo]

The explosive anger at the Linux Code of Conflict betrays that this fight has been less over needing clear rules as it is the need of some people to force their particular set of rules in as many places as possible.