[dijit]

I wrote a blog post about it but it was used against me by an interviewer at riot games. So I unpublished it.

Essentially it boils down to outlawing vague arrays of behaviour that can apply to essentially anyone and thus must be selectively enforced. I used examples from history surrounding vague laws and the implications that came from that (usually it’s the precursor to huge atrocities or totalitarian regimes. Although I’m certainly not saying they always are).

The wording for the freebsd code of conduct was the most troubling, if you take it at its letter then you basically shouldn’t (or can’t) have non-work discussions because any comment on appearance, lifestyle, diet or even sending “hug” without prior consent is verboten.

It’s also a list of things that are not allowed. Not a way of actually presenting yourself.

Some of the hacker news guidelines are a good example of the inverse: “assume good faith”

The thing is. It comes from a very US-centric political source (geekfeminism) and was barely given any time to be disseminated or discussed, so people were a bit sour- and the handling of criticism only made people more sour

Anyway. This thread doesn’t need us to digress into this topic, and we already have.

I shouldn’t have included that snippet in my comment. I know it’s controversial.

[orbifold]

Regarding commenting on other people’s appearance: this is something I find personally super tedious. When I am at work I really don’t want people to start commenting on my appearance, both negatively or positively.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Yeah; without commenting on any specific CoC, I'm broadly quite in favor of officially discouraging using official project channels to discuss or say anything that's not explicitly about the project. It's not just a question of making people uncomfortable, it's just... irrelevant. You think there's an issue with a proposed refactoring? Great, let's hear it. You like someone else's new haircut? That's nice, but it is at best spam in project-specific channels.

[dijit]

CoC's apply to Conferences and out of band discussions in off-topic channels and PM's.

[tick_tock_tick]

Almost all of the CoCs being discussed here explicit make no distinction between project communication channels and general communication channels. In other words a comment you made on a generic social media account will see you removed from a project.

[dijit]

Do you not want it enough that it should be forbidden for anyone?

Maybe I come from a different culture (British) but it’s fairly common for people to find something they like about someone else and then comment on it. That can be appearance or other things.

For instance I was at google next last year and I told someone that they had a really nice t-shirt and enquired about where it was purchased. Did I make them uncomfortable?

If I didn’t, is it forbidden?

Does it matter at all to the progress of a project?

[aflag]

You must not work as a model.

[alexanderdmitri]

Or a view. Most likely a controller.

[ethbro]

Or in other words, a greater number of laws shifts power to the adjudicator, because eventually everyone is doing something illegal.

And when passes for illegal behavior become the norm for everyday functioning, whoever has the ability to give out passes becomes all-powerful.

Wheaton's law seems to suffice and produce more positive communities. If you find yourself needing to rules-lawyer your contributors -- maybe take a step back and solve some underlying issues instead?

[calcifer]

> I wrote a blog post about it but it was used against me by an interviewer at riot games.

Honestly? That sounds like the system is working as intended. I'm not from the US, never been there, and I wouldn't want the author of such a post on my team either.

[leftyted]

...you say this not having read the post or met the person who wrote it.

In theory I have nothing against codes of conduct. In practice they are too often vague and written by the perennially-offended.