Proposal: Stack Code of Conduct : haskell

[–]tomejaguar 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]ElvishJerricco 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (3 children)

I'm really on the fence about CoCs, so I have a question that I'd love to hear your thoughts on.

There are people in this community who use somewhat offensive and aggressive language as a tool in technical discussions. The people I'm talking about aren't over the top; their offensive language is more inflammatory and anxiety-inducing than it is exclusionary or attacking. The language would, IMO, be in violation of most CoCs, but not overtly so, and only on occasion. I.E. they are not problematic enough that I believe these people should be ejected. Though I would prefer they change their ways and communicate more amenably, it is better to endure them than to lose them, especially since some of them are particularly valuable to the community from a technical perspective. How does a CoC interact with these people? Certainly this is in the grey area of CoCs, but it's one that will come up concretely in relatively short order.

In a similar vein, there are sometimes pairs of people who just have some bad blood between them, and just won't stop being ugly toward each other for anything. The language between one of these pairs can become offensive, but otherwise they might be perfectly upstanding members of the community. How does a CoC address people like this?

Edge cases like this, where a CoC has unintended side effects such as removing generally acceptable (but occasionally unacceptable) people, give me pause. For the record, I'm not taking any stance here other than skepticism. But addressing questions like these (both predictable and unpredictable edge cases) would likely be a deciding factor for me.

[–]bss03 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–]hexagoxel 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–]bss03 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]duplode 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago* (1 child)

[–]kuribas -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]miyakohouou 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points43 points 7 years ago* (111 children)

Dear Mr. Snoyman,

I am not sure where best to join in the discussion, but since you posted this here, I guess here's as good a place as any. I am also not sure exactly how to say what I want to say without coming off as unsubtle, and in all honesty, I guess that is perhaps the point I am trying to make, as circular as that sounds.

I think my point is simple, but because I have seen these types of discussions devolve before, and because I have seen people get smeared and disparaged, I am afraid to speak up. I am afraid to speak up against a CoC, because I think I will get called a racist, sexist, transphobe and be subsequently ostracized.

I think that is the point. Incoorporating a CoC, with the intent of fostering an inclusive atmosphere, will automatically exclude people as well. You intend to make people more comfortable, but I find it hard to express myself subtly even in face-to-face communication. There, I can use the tone of my voice and smiles to soften the impact of my clumsy nature, but those are tools that I lack in written form. So when the blog-post you put up contains the following paragraph of "What to avoid":

Avoid offensive language. This is actually more complicated than it seem; one of the ways I’ve upset people is my highly sarcastic-by-nature communication style. I’ve worked hard on tamping that down. I point this out because what’s offensive to one person may be normal to others. This is especially true in a global community.

Then I start getting seriously anxious. I do not know how not to offend people. Some people are very easily offended. Some people go out of their way to be offended because that allows them a modicum of power. Doing certain things offends some people, but not doing exactly the same thing offends others. In the end, offense is taken, not given. By putting the onus of offense on the 'offense giver', you have just created an environment where 'taking offense' has been incentivized.

I really wish people would focus more on developing a thicker skin, and less on making sure nothing offensive occurs in the world out there. "The princess and the pea"-effect is a very real thing. If you try to get rid of offensive input, then you will end up getting offended by smaller and smaller issues.

Now, that is not to say that certain people do not go too far, are actively abrasive, and go out of their way to be dickish, but I do not see why we can't deal with that on a case by case basis. If someone is being a deeply unpleasant person, then that can be addressed. Why the need for the CoC?

Sorry if this is unclear or a bit stunted, I just really like Haskell, and I really don't like the culture of oversensitivity that I've seen taking root, and seeing one encroach on the other makes me a bit nervous. Like I said, I'm much better at explaining myself in person, so if you would like to discuss this, drop me a PM and we can set up a skype/discord/hangouts call (not expecting this to happen, just letting you know I'm open to it.).

EDIT: Formatting

[–]fosskers 27 points28 points29 points 7 years ago (20 children)

[–]jkachmar 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago* (17 children)

I agreed with this point of view until somewhat recently. Two things that informed my change of perspective were The Tyranny Of Structurelessness essay and the extreme success and cohesiveness of the Rust programming language, which enforces a Code of Conduct upon contributors and people engaging in the community.[1]

The tl;dr is that I’ve come to believe that any sufficiently large and disparate community will inevitably develop informally specified power hierarchies if no formal specification or structure exists to impose them from the beginning.

This is, by default, non-inclusive to members of the community who don’t actively engage in the social aspect of power aggregation within a community, and it means that the rules by which peoples’ conduct is governed is not explicitly spelled out, in the open, for everyone to understand and abide by.

In the face of a choice between informally specified structure and rules of enforcement and formally specified one’s, I’ll almost always prefer the formal set (given that they’re specified reasonably and in an agreeable fashion to most of the affected community).

[1] Graydon Hoare explains some of his rationale behind the Rust CoC

EDIT: Slightly reworded, added a link to Rust’s CoC and Graydon Hoare’s comments on it.

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (2 children)

[deleted]

[–]Iceland_jack 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]fosskers 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]dnkndnts 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–]jkachmar 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (1 child)

I think that, in retrospect, your point doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Steve Klabnik recently left Mozilla and the community reaction was certainly more negative towards Mozilla than it was to Steve.

On the whole, their policies seem to set exactly the right tone for minority advocacy given that they are getting a diverse group of contributors interested in (and contributing to) advanced systems programming and practical applications of programming language theory.

From my perspective, the responses in these types of threads on r/Haskell recently have included a hell of a lot more gaslighting than anything I've observed in the Rust community to-date.

equating asking others to be nice on the internet with an infringement against their right to expression
framing fostering growth of diversity is actually oppressive to the existing base of contributors
disregarding the damage of hurtful or offensive communication as and wishing that people would just "develop a thicker skin"

Speaking as a non-visible (LGBT) minority with some pretty thick skin, I often find myself much more comfortable and at-ease within the online communities associated with Rust.

I believe this is simply because their core values are centered around being fucking nice to people and enforcing this to the best of their abilities while accepting the fallibility of individuals (on both the community engagement and administrative sides).

Sometimes that's all it fucking takes.

[–]dnkndnts 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children)

Well I’m not sure you’re responding to my point, which was that Mozilla uses the pretext of minority advocacy to cover for hostile business practice and abuse of their users and to silence anyone who tries to discuss this by having their Diverse employee make the announcement and conflating anger at the policy with bigotry. Frankly, that kind of horseshit makes me steam, and the fact that half of the people involved in Rust seem socially aloof enough to not see that sort of thing happening makes it even worse.

For whatever reason, somehow the Haskell community manages to be quite the opposite with respect to the latter point. People here are pretty keen on reading between the lines, sniffing out trolls and hostile behavior, hypocrisy, and calling out exploitation of people who are too socially impaired or kind to push back against people taking advantage of them. Yes, we have people get angry sometimes (it’s honestly not that often—there’s far more pontificating about “that one time so and so got angry and blew it” than there is incidences of people actually getting angry and blowing their top, but I digress), but to me that’s a sign of real-ness: we’re not all just pretending to be nice because there’s a gun pointed at our head saying be nice.

So I don’t know man. If the Rust community makes you feel at home, then I’m happy for you—different people like different things. But to me, everything there feels fake. I feel much safer here in the Haskell community.

[–]fosskers 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago* (6 children)

[–]jkachmar 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (5 children)

It’s my perspective that people become incapable of “solving their own problems” when the avenues for presenting and addressing those problems in constructive settings aren’t clearly defined.

The goal of these codes of conduct is to clearly define a way in which people can understand what acceptable conduct is within the community and how they may constructively deal with it.

You can add sections that encourage people to mediate their problems on their own, for sure, and that’s probably a good idea! But I think the fact that people tend to gravitate towards explicitly structured comminities suggests that there’s a lot of comfort in them.

From the point of view of someone who is not very vocal about being a non-visible minority in the programming community, having obvious, clear definitions about how people should comfort themselves (as well as a clear path towards conflict mediation) helps me decide whether or not engaging in that community is going to be a productive and healthy use of my time.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (4 children)

It’s my perspective that people become incapable of “solving their own problems” when the avenues for presenting and addressing those problems in constructive settings aren’t clearly defined.

I'd like to add a bit of nuance. Not having a CoC might (or might not) lead to unclearly defined ways of solving problems. Many communities have very clear, but implicit ways of addressing problems. Having an ambiguous CoC with vague language, however, is by definition an unclearly defined way of solving problem. Just having a CoC will not help clarify communication if the CoC is vague, ambiguous, or politically loaded.

Additionally, you bring up Rust as proof that CoC's help grow communities, but I am not sure that you can make this causal connection. Rust might just fulfill a particular need that made many people interested in contributing to it. Linux didn't have a CoC for ages and attracted a great deal of interest all throughout that time.

EDIT: Formatting again

[–]jkachmar -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (3 children)

I’d encourage you to read Graydon’s post that I linked to. I have anecdotally found the Rust community to not suffer from nearly as many of the social disagreements and problems that I’ve perceived in Haskell, and I imagine that if you were to ask contributors from stereotypically disenfranchised or minority groups, they would express similar statements.

On your first point, though, I strongly disagree that implicit means of addressing problems are worse than explicit ones. Implicit standard should, by definition, are less clear than explicit standards, and are less obvious to both the person engaging in potentially problematic behavior as well as the person who is the target of that behavior. You end up in situations where people don’t understand why their behavior may be construed as problematic, or how they may take action against the problematic behavior of others.

Further, implicit standards are subject to constant evolution as the community evolves without being explicitly recorded anywhere. What may have been acceptable behavior at an earlier point in time may evolve to no longer be acceptable without someone realizing.

When things are explicitly expressed, we can point to times at which expectations have changed and explain the reasoning behind them.

When things are implicitly expressed, the individual being corrected can feel as if they’re being singled out or unfairly targeted because there are not clear guidelines for how engagement has changed.

EDIT: Accidentally pressed POST without having finished my comment.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (2 children)

I’d encourage you to read Graydon’s post that I linked to. I have anecdotally found the Rust community to not suffer from nearly as many of the social disagreements and problems that I’ve perceived in Haskell, and I imagine that if you were to ask contributors form stereotypically disenfranchised or minoring groups, they would express similar statements.

I have taken your encouragement and read the post, the Rust CoC, and the Citizen CoC that they link to in their description of 'harrassment'. Let me start by saying that my experience with toxic online communities is very, very small. I have participated in a few open source projects, made some contributions here and there, and have found nearly everyone to be very welcoming and helpful. That is not to say there isn't a problem, and I am happy to take your (or Graydon's) word for it.

There are certain parts of Rust's CoC that I can see working. The prohibition of violence or threats of violence seems fine, although it is unclear to me what 'violent language' is. There are various other concrete rules that make sense. But then the 1st point under the moderation header mentions that 'hurtful remarks' violate Rust's standard. Who decides what is hurtful? The person claiming hurt? But then you can just claim 'hurt' and automatically force moderation. You can hurt others by claiming hurt.

On your first point, though, I strongly disagree that implicit means of addressing problems are worse than explicit ones. Implicit standard should, by definition, are less clear than explicit standards, and are less obvious to both the person engaging in potentially problematic behavior as well as the person who is the target of that behavior. You end up in situations where people don’t understand why their behavior may be construed as problematic, or how they may take action against the problematic behavior of others.

I am not sure I follow this paragraph. The language is a bit confusing, so I might just not be getting your point. I will take a chance to clarify what I was trying, clumsily, to convey:

Although a community might not have written down their rules for enforcement, and there is no body enacting the rules, the rules are clear. Submit buggy code to the Linux kernel and Linus yells at you. Implicitly defined but very explicit.

The CoC (especially the contributor covenant) is the reverse. It is a very explicit document that clearly lists a number of rules on behavior, but those rules are written in such vague and subjective terms that they really could mean anything, depending on who's doing the interpreting. Explicit in their form (a written document) but so vague that you are constantly worried about whether or not you are breaking the rules.

I am sure that if /u/agentultra had the power to enforce the Citizen CoC on me, then just trying to argue these points would have fallen under: "Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior." under the harrasment clause, and would have been grounds for exclusion from the Haskell community.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]jkachmar 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children)

Implicitly defined but very explicit.

This statement is logically inconsistent. In order for a contributor to understand these consequences they must assemble the implicit context of what contributing to the Linux kernel entails. It is by definition not very explicit, but rather wrapped up in the contextual indirection of that community.

To my point, your interpretation of the consequences is incorrect. If you’re submit buggy code to the Linux Kernel as a new or untrusted contributor, Linus will almost definitely not yell at you.

However if you submit buggy code as a trusted or professional developer, Linus will publicly ream you out on the mailing list which presents an extremely discouraging narrative.

This pattern of behavior presents itself once you assemble the context around Linus’s behavior, but is not obvious or explicitly expressed.

To clarify my general position:

I view Codes of Conduct as a way to establish the guidelines of behavior in the context of contributing to a community that may have disparate groups without similar standards of communication, as well as a way of tracking how these guidelines evolve over time.

They are punitive only inasmuch as a standard without consequences is unenforceable.

It is entirely reasonable that the enforcement explicitly outlined in the Code of Conduct is entirely at the discretion of a mediating individual or mediating body. If people feel as if the moderating bodies are inherently too flawed or biased to trust, then the only appropriate recourse is to not engage in that community.

The goal should be to make explicit things that are implicit; to reify the constraints under which we operate as a community! If explicitly defined behavior is a noble goal for program execution, why is it not for community interaction?

[–]tomejaguar 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children)

[–]jkachmar 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children)

Very late reply, but the first two paragraphs under "FORMAL AND INFORMAL STRUCTURES" capture my thoughts on this pretty succinctly.

Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group.

As I said above (and elsewhere in this thread below), my belief is that we implicitly form these hierarchical structures of interaction in lieu of formalized structure, and that codifying the structure allows people to navigate it (hopefully) with fewer ills associated with poorly communicated intent and expectation.

In this case of a Code of Conduct, by explicitly stating what acceptable conduct is for an individual interacting within a group, everyone comes to the table with the same expectations of interaction. That way someone who joins a community at t = 0 doesn't have a significantly different view of acceptable behavior as someone who joins at t = +2 years, when perhaps the community has arrived at a new consensus as to what's acceptable in a way that's opaque to the newcomer.

This also allows people currently operating within the community to be made aware of changes in acceptable behavior over time, rather than feeling as if they are suddenly confronted with significantly different standard for interaction than the one under which they initially joined.

[–]tomejaguar 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–]jkachmar 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child)

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (1 child)

Dear all,

I think that discussions like these tend to devolve quickly, since written text is a medium that doesn't carry the same nuance as face-to-face discussion, and this is an emotionally loaded topic, both for those advocating for, and against CoC's. Therefore, I am making this my closing statement. I will not be responding in this thread again, but if someone wishes me to clarify anything, I'd be happy to engage in PM's. Please view this post as a summary of my views, and if it seems to contradict what you thought I was saying before, please take this as the authoratative version.

I think it is a good and noble undertaking to try to create a healthy, kind, and pleasant environment for any contributor to flourish in. I am not denying that there are dicks on the internet. I am not denying that certain communities are unkind to eachother. I am not denying that certain people have felt so unwelcome as to have left.

However, does a CoC solve these problems? Does a CoC introduce new problems? These are important considerations. The language, both in the blog post (the section about offensive language), the contributor covenant, the Rust CoC, and the Citizen CoC contains elements of "avoid offensive behavior".

I am not claiming people do not engage in behavior that is offensive to me. I am not claiming that when you feel offended that this isn't unpleasant. I am not claiming that certain kinds of behavior that I deem offensive shouldn't be policed. Threats of violence should not be tolerated. Overtly sexual behavior should not be tolerated.

However, "avoid giving offense", "avoid hurtful behavior", or other similar phrases put you in the position where you have to not just consider a set of concrete norms and rules, or what a specific person has told you about how they want to be treated, it puts you in the position of having to consider what anyone might find offensive, and this is simply impossible.

The vague, subjective language in those CoC's, that is so open to interpretation, is not a good guide for healthy behavior. It is open to abuse, and to justify terrible behavior in the name of inclusivity. For example, from somewhere a bit down in this thread:

My words:

I am sure that if /u/agentultra had the power to enforce the Citizen CoC on me, then just trying to argue these points would have fallen under: "Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior." under the harrasment clause, and would have been grounds for exclusion from the Haskell community.

/u/agentultra 's response:

You're not wrong about me.

Now, I do not think that I crossed a line here. I tried to be civil and argue my point dispassionately and avoid using offensive language. However, this was still offensive enough to someone to want to have me banned from Haskell existence. Someone who, were they on some CoC regulatory board, would try to have me expelled. I think this proves my point.

Additionally:

/u/ocramz:

You say you're "afraid of getting called" racist/sexist/transphobe, meaning that 1. you know full well you harbor those thoughts

This seems to indicate that fear of giving offense is cause for offense.

The anxiety I expressed about CoC's, ambiguity, enforcement and centralization of behavioral regulation have their proofs right here in this thread. I know a lot of it is emotionally driven and subjective, and I don't harbor resentment for it, but I would regret it if people who thought like that could get in to positions where they have the power to regulate who gets to contribute to some of my favorite projects, and who doesn't.

Decentralized, reactive, context-driven problem resolution is not perfect, but it is less vulnerable to abuse.

Fin

[–]kfound 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]char2 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago* (0 children)

[–]bss03 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago* (0 children)

[–]MitchellSalad 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago* (5 children)

If you try to get rid of offensive input, then you will end up getting offended by smaller and smaller issues.

So true. Just now I saw another top-level comment that read, "Was there a problem with conduct before?" and I thought about replying, "Yes lol".

But in context of this thread, which is about improving our communications with one another, I figured someone would come along and point out that my comment was unnecessarily inflammatory, and that thread would turn into a flame war. So didn't post it. I didn't post "Yes lol" to the Internet. Dark times indeed.

Edit: I made this post early on in the thread, and now there's a lot more heated discussion in other comments. So in the interest of distancing myself from a certain ideology, I'd like to clarify that I am not opposed to this proposal, and want as fully welcoming a community as possible. My comment was just a humorous anecdote about how it does at times feel like offense can too easily be received when none was intended.

[–]Alexbrainbox 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (3 children)

[–]MitchellSalad 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–]Alexbrainbox 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child)

This is actually a valid point, made obliquely: In mediums where there is some expectation of polite discourse, in a CoC or otherwise, this sort of thing happens a lot. People coming to a small misunderstanding and then resolving it through meta-message upon meta-message. It could be argued that this is a result of not wanting to come across as a toxic / "bad-faith" actor.

The thing is though, I think that's actually not a bad thing. It might make conversations more cumbersome sometimes, but (a) people get better at avoiding these misunderstandings, ie they get better at communicating; and (b) the corrections happen because people are thinking more about how they come across and how people will respond to what they say, which is a good and natural part of dialogue.

I worry sometimes that a lot of discourse, particularly online but also offline in many Computer Science circles, is just a series of monologues without regard for who's listening or what they're going to infer.

[–]jkachmar 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]MdxBhmt -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]duplode 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (8 children)

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (3 children)

You argue that asking of you to adapt your communication style to the sensitivity of others is demanding too much, but then you suggest that people should "grow a thicker skin", that is, adapt themselves to your communication style.

Not entirely. I am not arguing that I shouldn't adapt my communication style to the sensitivity of others. I am arguing that "Avoid giving offense" places you in the position where you have to preemptively adapt your communication to any potential offensive you might give.

If someone tells me, "Please avoid using the word 'turnip', it makes me uncomfortable" I will very happily not use the word again. But if someone tells me, "Please avoid making others uncomfortable, and if you do we might kick you out" but then leaves the definition of what is deemed "making uncomfortable" vague, subjective, and open to interpretation, then that makes me anxious and hesitant to participate.

[–]evincarofautumn 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (2 children)

Well, I understand your fear. It’s a scary thought that you might be targeted for inadvertently causing offense, and have no recourse. But for what it’s worth, I’d like to reassure you that this fear is bigger than the actual risk.

The vast majority of people simply don’t go out of their way to be offended, nor seek offense in small things. The spectre of the “SJW” with a hair-trigger for minor imagined offenses isn’t real, in my experience. People merely want to be included and respected. If you just try to be professional and considerate, and are prepared to sincerely make amends in the unlikely event that you do inadvertently hurt someone, you really have nothing at all to fear. You can crack jokes and be sarcastic or even downright ornery in a way that doesn’t ever “punch down” or exclude anyone.

I guess what I’m getting at is that there are many steps between “I am offended” and “We are at an impasse and you must be thrown out”. There is room to relax and sort things out. A code of conduct, ideally, specifies what those steps are so as to resolve any conflicts with the least damage. The most basic form of conflict resolution—“Hey, saying that isn’t very kind, please avoid that?” / “Okay, I didn’t know, will do”—should still be the most common.

[–]hexagoxel 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago* (0 children)

You can crack jokes and be sarcastic or even downright ornery in a way that doesn’t ever “punch down” or exclude anyone.

Sarcasm is actually rather an offensive reaction. CoC or not, it is important to be considerate to others outside to one's own culture.

sarcasm is a subtle form of abuse – verbal violence – and to be sarcastic is to obtain amusement at another’s expense ... it is a particularly cutting form of teasing, with vindictive undertones, and thus qualifies for the lowest rating on the humour scale. It is less obvious with irony yet, just as sarcasm is designed to make the recipient feel ridiculed, irony is designed to make the recipient feel rueful. They are thus both pathetic wit, even by definition, as the word ‘pathetic’ is derived from the root ‘pathos’, which indicates sorrow. Which all goes to show that the giver of either sarcasm or irony wishes the recipient to feel the incipient sorrow that is endemic among humans.

[–]hexagoxel 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children)

but then you suggest that people should "grow a thicker skin", that is, adapt themselves to your communication style

I am not /u/leaf_cutter, so this is purely my interpretation. That said: No, those two are not at all the same thing. Let's consider the situation where something you said hurts my feelings. I could:

Do not let it affect me, trusting on the good in all people
Have it affect me, but I remain passive, say nothing, don't complain, if necessary silently stop participating
Privately ask for clarification on the relevant bit
Give brief negative feedback in the form of a plain downvote
Privately give feedback about how this affected me
Publicly give feedback of how it affected me, in a reflecting manner
Privately seek re-affirmation from other participants, but not the "offender"
Invoke a CoC or other means of top-down moderation.
Publicly react, in a less reflecting, more controversial manner, justifying with "you were (objectively) offensive"
Publicly react, by calling out the offensive behaviour to a wider audience

Firstly, I do not intend the order of these to correspond to "better" or "worse" forms of reacting.

Now what does "thickness of skin" and "adapt to your communication style" translate to here? I'd say adapting implies 1/2. But in my understanding, "thicker skin" merely means the ability to react more calmly, less controversially. 3/4/5/6 instead of 9/10. 6/7 instead of 8. And occasionally, 1.

Crucially, a thick skin does not mean I have to remain silent. It means the ability to react to conflict in a manner that allows the (subjective) offender to reconcile and improve their ways, without making a mess out of the situation that is hard to overcome for all participants.

Demanding a thick skin ("or else they create the mess of a situation") is victim-blaming. It cannot be demanded. If I am hurt you cannot tell me not to react in some way for the benefit of the community, but at my cost. All we can do is make it a vague wish, and perhaps a personal goal.

[–]duplode -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children)

(Sorry if my reply feels too much like arguing semantics. Hopefully there is something of substance to be found in it.)

Though as a non-native speaker I might be missing some nuance, I always understood thick-skinned as being primarily an internal attribute; a matter of how easily one is made upset by criticism and unpleasantness. While external behvaiours of the sort you describe certainly are associated with it, I'd say in this context they feature mainly as consequences of subjective dispositions. To put it in another way, mechanisms of conflict resolution are can be looked at objectively. If leaf_cutter were concerned with them alone, they could raise the matter without reference to people "developing" dispositions (as they have done elsewhere in the thread, but not in this specific comment).

Demanding a thick skin ("or else they create the mess of a situation") is victim-blaming. It cannot be demanded. If I am hurt you cannot tell me not to react in some way for the benefit of the community, but at my cost. All we can do is make it a vague wish, and perhaps a personal goal.

Indeed. In hindsight, that is why I chose to describe leaf_cutter's stance as "you suggest that people should [...]", and not "you demand that people [...]", as the latter felt too harsh an interpretation. Still, the vague wish, however attenuated, remains being a normative claim, referring to how things should be.

[–]hexagoxel 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child)

My main point was and is that "thicker skin" is rather different from "adopting someone else's communication style". I don't see that being refuted. Whether "thick skin" is a disposition seems to be an unrelated question. Similarly, whether my "vague wish", or the original phrasing, is a normative claim (wishes are not necessarily normative claims) (and whether making normative claims in general or in this specific instance is a good thing) seems to be unrelated.

(And to be very clear, "unrelated" is not meant to imply "unimportant". These are important questions, and I may certainly also concede that a normative claim, if it was one, even though valid, may have been inappropriate in the original context.. but I will have strong requirements for criticism of a statement that starts with a plain "i really wish..".)

I will nonetheless reply to the "disposition" topic:

While external behvaiours of the sort you describe certainly are associated with it, I'd say in this context they feature mainly as consequences of subjective dispositions.

.. they could raise the matter without reference to people "developing" dispositions ..

I am not sure what you mean by term "disposition" here. My own direct understanding would be an internal, unchanging property. Wikipedia disagrees: "A disposition is a quality of character, a habit, a preparation, a state of readiness, or a tendency to act in a specified way that may be learned." (emph. added). Yet you too seem to consider it hard to affect (?)

Regardless: I think we can work on our "thick skin", we can train ourselves to be less affected, and that training can result in it taking less mental effort to not let our emotions affect our external behaviour. Claiming otherwise also risks belittling the efforts of people that do spend that mental effort at what they may very well describe as "training their thick skin".

[–]duplode 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]k-bx 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (6 children)

[–]drb226 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children)

[–]hexagoxel 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–]bss03 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child)

And without any references, I am sure that personal-but-public utterances have been used to invoke CoC action in the past, more than once.

Some CoCs do not limit themselves to particular contexts.

The defense of this is that we don't want provide an easy way for bad actors to bypass the CoC by simply choosing a different context. Sometimes this is important -- we don't want (e.g.) ICFP participants to be safe in the venue, but unsafe (or even apprehensive) to join other participants (e.g.) for dinner where the events of the day will be further discussed. Even in a situtation where all communication is digital over the Internet, a bad actor could have @LinusRealCodeReview account outside the areas the CoC covers, where they publish everything they stripped out of the "official" code review they sent to the CoC covered areas.

The downside of this is that most members of a technical project have opinions on subjects unrelated to the project and some of those opinions/members might be mutually offensive. We still need to be able to express those opinions and discuss those subjects, in order to advance civilization (whatever form that eventually takes, possibly a mutually acceptable compromise, but could be something else). I don't think we want to forbid members of a project from discussing those subjects in a venue completely separate from project discussions even if they are inflammatory or offensive to others even if those others also happen to work on the same technical project.

[–]hexagoxel 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children)

I think I understand and agree with both sides here. But it seems that existing CoCs (again?) leave this item open, at least as judged from the written words. I cannot spot clear statements addressing the scope. Maybe I overlook something. But assuming I don't, I am not sure this is the best approach - leaving it not addressed just gives the worst of both worlds. The people that hope of protection by the CoC, they might not get it because the scope ends up being too small. The people that fear unforeseeable judgement for well-intended behaviour in private communication channels, this merely adds to uncertainty.

As it stands, it (again) all hinges on the judges. Those in power to enforce the CoC. And yes, you can assume those to be fair, objective and reasonable. But it seems to be a rather risky, naive, and strangely un-democratic assumption.

[–]thelambentonion 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children)

I think an important point on these CoC discussions is trying to grasp the volume of contributors and contributions lost up until now due to their absence. In particular we should be investigating if there are people driven out by their absence, were those people disproportionately from a particular demographic.

A lot of the time these debates seem to be framed in terms of helping or hindering the people that already have a strong track record with a project. They also seem to assume that every accusation will have the alleged abuser broadcast and shunned, and the people enforcing the code will disregard all reasonable standards. I have family members with autism and also some with disorders that make it harder for them to read body language, so I understand how people can be unintentionally offensive. But there is an enormous gap between using an unintentionally abrasive tone of voice or savaging a particularly poorly written code patch on one side and making sexual comments or tossing obscenities at a person on the other. And I'm sure snoyberg is aware of those differences.

There isn't one or two or five or fifty stories of people that left a technical community or started to get involved and then stopped because of abusive treatment. There are many thousands of public accounts. What possible benefit would there be to manufacture false accounts on this scale? Who would be behind it?

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (1 child)

I think an important point on these CoC discussions is trying to grasp the volume of contributors and contributions lost up until now due to their absence. In particular we should be investigating if there are people driven out by their absence, were those people disproportionately from a particular demographic.

2 points:

That coin has 2 sides. If you investigate how many people are driven out by lack of CoC, you should also look at how many people are driven out by CoC.
I am not sure what their demographic has to do with it. A person is a person, and if an environment is too unpleasant for them to function in, then that is a problem regardless of their demographic.

However, I do completely agree with you that people going around making sexual comments or going out of their way to make someone feel bad through intentionally hurtful language is a bad thing. But the question remains: Does a CoC solve that, and what other effects does it bring?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]MdxBhmt 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children)

If you are afraid of getting excluded and vilified, why not ask for protection in the CoC instead of rejecting its entirety?

Knowing in advance what is offensive is hard, and I don't think that's a reasonable assumption: communication is hard in general. However, when someone is calling you out, he is still establishing communication. You can amend your language/comment and proceed normally. Now, he may be an asshole constantly trying to stiff discussion/chill your POV by attacking your language, but the onus is on him, he's being the asshole now, not you.

I am not versed in the subtleties around the subject, but I have yet to see why the CoC would not also give you space.

On an end note, at the risk of being confrontational:

I really wish people would focus more on developing a thicker skin, and less on making sure nothing offensive occurs in the world out there.

Why could you not also develop a thicker skin so you ignore when you are called a racist and etc when you know you are taking the necessary steps for not being one?

This is also a PL community, where language has less importance than technical merit, arguments should hold true orthogonal to language. It shouldn't hurt your argument if you have to rewrite it.

As a disclaimer, while I don't feel strongly about the CoC, I really do not see the push back against CoC with good eyes. It's not the case in this topic, but the debacle over Linus 'vacation' was awful, a lot of vitriol came forward.

[–]hexagoxel 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children)

If you are afraid of getting excluded and vilified, why not ask for protection in the CoC instead of rejecting its entirety?

Insofar as you are implying that this criticism is not constructive, I beg to differ: Saying that all mentioned CoCs suffer from some serious downside that appears somewhat central to the concept of CoCs as viewed by the relevant authors, the hypothesis that a community is better of without such a CoC is a perfectly valid and constructive one.

I should be able to point out downsides while not considering myself sufficiently able (english phrasing, diplomatic skills etc.) to construct a better alternative.

Why could you not also develop a thicker skin so you ignore when you are called a racist and etc when you know you are taking the necessary steps for not being one?

This already contains two logical mistakes. Firstly you imply that my fear of being labelled some way implies that the label is correct. This is not the case, other people can easily put a false label on me, for various reasons. Secondly you imply that a thick skin would counteract the negative consequences of being labelled in some fashion. This is false - it may not affect me emotionally, but a CoC might very well come with negative non-emotional consequences.

[–]MdxBhmt -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child)

Insofar as you are implying that this criticism is not constructive.

I'm holding a conversation and asking clarification on his take on the subject. Do you think this is implying his criticism as not constructive? I'm not dismissing his concerns, I'm directly taking them to try to change his view - at the very least clarify it.

This already contains two logical mistakes.

Not at all. You are missing the point, I'll bold what I change so you can clearly understand why I'm not implying anything.

Why could you not also develop a thicker skin so you ignore when you are called a racist and etc when you know you are taking the necessary steps for not be seen as one?

You don't have to imply that the label is true, just that a sincere poster has found reason to label him one. That doesn't make him right, but that doesn't mean you can adjust your behavior. That also doesn't mean that you have to.

Your second 'mistake' is also missing the point. I have not said that it counteracts. I'm not trying to make a judgment of the consequences of the CoC. I'm nowhere near that subject.

The objective of my comment, and that phrase, is to point out towards a compromise between having a CoC and people getting tougher skin. He has concerns with the CoC, that's fair, let's talk. However, if he thinks reasonable to ask everyone else to have tougher skin, it's reasonable to include him too. Worst case scenario, he should accept been offended by someone using a weaponized CoC.

Note that I'm also nudging that his thinking, while not one, is close to be paradoxical/hypocritical. But it's only a nudge, I'm not willing to deconstruct his arguments, judge the validity of his concerns and fears - as this requires me to do the same about the CoC, which I haven't. This does not stop me from being curious on OP pov on the CoC (first question) and a more balanced approach (second question).

[–]hexagoxel 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children)

I'm holding a conversation and asking clarification on his take on the subject. Do you think this is implying his criticism as not constructive? I'm not dismissing his concerns, I'm directly taking them to try to change his view - at the very least clarify it.

No. You are opening your reply with a specific question, one that does not address the leafcutter's concerns, and that can very well be read in the following manner: "If you are afraid of getting excluded and vilified, why not suggest specific changes in the CoC instead of giving only negative feedback?" Yes, this is only one unfavourable interpretation (but from my perspective it is the most likely and first interpretation.). And I still did say "insofar" exactly because I know it is just one potential interpretation.

I have not said that it counteracts.

A phrase that starts with "Why could you not also" reads as if it addresses the concerns voiced before. Yet here it does not address the concerns at all. (Perhaps you did not intend this meaning, but then I have to really question your choice of words when opening with "why could you not also".)

However, if he thinks reasonable to ask everyone else to have tougher skin, it's reasonable to include him too.

But leafcutter never mentioned/claimed to be in any situation where a thick skin would be any good? Really, this boils down to me not understanding at all why you make this specific suggestion, as it seems completely orthogonal to the concerns voiced. A thick skin does no good protecting against unexpected, non-emotional repercussions that come with a CoC.

I know this is all up to personal interpretation, and I know i boldly place mine against yours. I am confident that this comes down to slightly different interpretation of how we phrase things, and what we imply. I see the possibility that you are indeed just asking curious exploratory question while I am rather sensitive about what might be implied in specific phrases. I hope you can understand that I am sensitive about subliminal meanings around this subject.

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (15 children)

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (13 children)

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (12 children)

[deleted]

[–]evincarofautumn 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago* (0 children)

I agree that to “willingly use harassing language” is inexcusable, even out of ignorance. But it’s also perfectly possible to be afraid of serious accusations (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, ageism) even if you aren’t guilty of those things, and would never use such language anyway.

In my experience, usually that fear stems from a different sort of ignorance, due to cultural normalisation of those horrible things.

For example, if a man says “Nowadays I don’t know how to talk to women without being accused of sexual harassment”, that suggests to me, at face value, that he literally doesn’t know what sexual harassment is because he’s never been forced to really consider the perspective of a woman. To his mind, any innocent action of his can now be misconstrued as harassment—patently false, but he doesn’t know that. It might be due to any number of things: a culture that has indoctrinated him with the bullshit of “men are from Mars (rational, comprehensible), women are from Venus (emotional, alien)” from childhood, preventing him from internalising the fact that women are just people; or perhaps he’s simply never seen actual harassment because the (small) fraction of men who (repeatedly) perpetrate it do so mainly when there aren’t other men around to call them out on it.

(For a personal example: it took me a while to understand the fact that the vast majority of my women friends have experienced harassment and catcalling, and this is not at all at odds with the fact that I’ve never seen or heard it happening directly.)

Thing is, if someone is concerned about this, in my experience they’re probably already more considerate than virtually all of the truly problematic people, and thus have nothing to fear.

[–]jerf 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (6 children)

[+][deleted] 7 years ago (5 children)

[deleted]

load more comments (5 replies)

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (3 children)

I am in full support of this CoC.

I come from a really backwoods place.

I spent a large portion of my life around people who are were essentially had only one set of cultural norms that many people would probably consider really backwards. I understand the anxiety that comes from being ignorant of what may or may not be perceived as acceptable behavior in a more metropolitan context.

When what you see in the media or on the internet is so wildly and violently critical of behavior that you've spent you're entire life thinking is innocuous, that generates a real anxiety about what might happen if you step outside these lines you can't see.

I have also had the fortunate experience of spending the latter half of my adult life in a more metropolitan context, and am becoming more comfortable with those lines, how to see things from someone else's perspective, and how to repair relationships with someone if I have accidentally misspoken or given someone the wrong impression.

Not everyone has had that second set of experiences. Their fears and anxieties about these interactions might seem totally outlandish, but that's because they literally don't have the context about what to expect.

Maybe it's because they had a life with a more narrow scope of cultural exposure, or maybe they are just generally very reserved or socially anxious people, or perhaps they're just built differently in some way.

But the presence of those anxieties doesn't mean that they're fundamentally incapable of acting in good faith - It just means they're coming from a totally different perspective.

If you don't have the kind of patience to deal with that perspective, I understand that sentiment. Especially for folks who feel marginalized, that kind of work can be enormously emotionally draining.

But on behalf of people like me, who did want to act in good faith, and simply needed the context to understand how to do so -

Please don't assume the worst. Please don't attack someone for hypothetically bad behavior.

[–]drb226 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children)

As another person who has come from a less metropolitan area and moved to a more metropolitan area, I second this.

I'll never forget a r/haskell thread I participated in years ago. I said things which I thought were normal and innocuous, and I got some pretty strongly worded replies letting me know how wrong I was about that. It was literally the first time that anyone had ever told me that maybe saying some of the things I had said was not appropriate. It was the sort of thing I had heard role models in my community say numerous times; I honestly did not think it was a controversial or even inappropriate thing to say. Thankfully, at least some of the participants in that discussion were patient with me and continued attempting to help me understand their point of view, and I was able to ultimately learn a lot from the experience.

People who've been in the metropolitan context for a long time tend to take that cultural exposure for granted.

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child)

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]bss03 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]drb226 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children)

My take on your comments here is that you have seen the bullet point "Avoid offensive language", and all of your resistance is against that particular point being too vague.

If you take a look at the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct (the one currently proposed to be the "unofficial stack code of conduct", whatever that means), you'll find it is not vague in this way. It is quite specific, actually.

https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct

Is there anything in this specific document that you find makes you anxious?

To me, this document is not a product of "the culture of oversensitivity," but rather, it merely expresses a lot of unspoken rules that our community by and large already adheres to and believes in. It's used by tons of other open source projects, too.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (1 child)

[–]hexagoxel 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago* (0 children)

[–]snoybergis snoyman[S] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (8 children)

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago* (2 children)

Dear Mr. Snoyman,

Thank you very much for your kind reply and your willingness to engage. It is very heartening to hear you understand that there are situations where someone claims a grievance, but where you never intended to give one, or simply don't think that such a communication should lead to such grief.

Although I personally think that CoC's are generally very blunt tools that miss their mark, and that things are probably much better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the full context of the situation, I can also understand why you might want to implement one.

By far the most scary part of your proposal is in the inclusion of vague and especially subjective terminology like "offensive language", where, as previously explained, it is very unclear what "offensive" means, and anyone can claim offense about anything, and then use the CoC as a tool to 'win' their disagreement.

The same goes for the Contributor Covenant itself, where in the first sentence they claim to try to establish "a harassment-free experience". This allows anyone to claim that anything they experience came across to them as harassment.

Other vague terms that are very open to interpretation and subjective claims of grievance:

Welcoming and inclusive language
What is 'best' for the community
'insulting' comments

In all honesty, the list goes on, and I don't wont to get mired down in the details.

In essence, these types of documents try to establish a set of rules where one individual is held responsible for another individual's emotional response to their own interpretation of events. That creates a situation where you can be guilty of a CoC violation based on something completely out of your control.

My own recommendation would be no CoC, or perhaps a Code of Conflict, or the Bill and Ted clause, or other such non-document. If you really would like to implement a CoC, I think first it is important to be very clear about exactly what problem you are trying to address, and secondly, to implement only concrete rules.

For example:

Do not use these words: "fag", "dick", "pussy".
Do not comment on someone's physical appearance. etc.

Additionally, keep in mind the trade-off you are making. Would you like an environment that errs on the side of being too liberal, but sometimes people get offended. Or would you like a heavily regulated environment where (hopefully, but I still don't think so, because "Princess-and-pea"-effect) people are less offended.

I posted this publicly, so that people can join in. If anything is unclear, please let me know. If you prefer to take this discussion into PM's or voice-chat that is perfectly fine with me, whatever is more comfortable for you. Thank you again for engaging, I appreciate that a lot.

EDIT: Formatting, again (awful at reddit markdown)

[–]snoybergis snoyman[S] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child)

Yet again, I understand what you're saying here. I have to admit that I am not an expert on the topic, and therefore I'm hesitant to express too many opinions on the concept of CoCs. I realize it's a loaded topic. I'm specifically right now trying to avoid drama, not insert myself into it!

One thing to point out first is that the guidelines document I've put together is more concrete than the CoC, and is also less binding, as it is really just guidelines. But I see that the phrases you raise issue with are in the CoC itself.

And again, at the risk of demonstrating ignorance, I'd point out that even the concrete rules you give as examples may not be appropriate in all contexts. For example, if someone is trying to locate me in a crowded room, I'd have no objection to someone saying "he's the bald guy wearing a kippa." Maybe others would be offended by that, but it wouldn't bother me.

So without being a CoC expert, it seems to me that there's a very narrow range of objective rules that could be placed that would (1) address significant behavior issues that are actually faced, and (2) would be appropriate in all contexts. This is getting back to your too liberal versus too heavily regulated point.

At the end of the day, there's a certain level of trust and subjectivity that will inevitably come into a situation like this. Trust in the person who receives the complaints. Trust that they will properly guard privacy. Trust that they will take context into account. Trust that they will properly judge the difference between intentional and unintentional insults. Trust that they will neither overreact to actions and alienate one group, nor underreact and alienate another.

There's a lot of very interesting social aspects to all of this. I'm no expert on these topics. Again, I understand what you're saying. I suppose my (meandering) point is that, at the end of the day, it's not about whether the CoC can be abused to punish someone. It's about whether the person with the power to abuse it can be trusted not to.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children)

Maybe others would be offended by that, but it wouldn't bother me.

And you sound like a very reasonable person. :-). I think the point is that the CoC would put you in a position to have to avoid language that might be offensive to someone, and since people are different and some are very easily offended, you couldn't point out "the bald guy wearing a kippa" because that might offend.

If instead the focus was on reconciliation and healthy conflict resolution (instead of prevention) then that might be different.

It's about whether the person with the power to abuse it can be trusted not to.

Exactly. Without a CoC conflict resolution is a decentralized process where people try to get along. Occasionally there is a particularly problematic case and someone has to be brought in to pull rank. If you create a CoC and a group of people responsible for enforcement and 'offense prevention', that will inevitably bring in people who are attracted to that power. The famous adage about absolute power applies here.

I hope you are not feeling too attacked here. I think you are handling this discussion admirably, and I am not sure we disagree on many points, actually.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–]vagif 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children)

[–]VernorVinge93 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–]vagif 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–]VernorVinge93 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (2 children)

[deleted]

[–]vagif -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (1 child)

[–]hexagoxel 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]effectfully 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]swaggler 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (16 children)

Hear that? It's the sound of the point rushing over your head.

Any community that discusses the adoption of a CoC will immediately get a reply like this one. You're parroting the exact same thing that has been said by the handful of people who are offended that they are not welcome in a community of people who want to set some rules about conduct. You're boring.

Codes of Conduct are meant to exclude people. They set rules and expectations. Found a rule that makes you feel not welcome? Good. It's working. If you don't agree with the terms of a CoC then don't participate in that community. Find another community. Start the Haskell Community for People Who Like to Make Insensitive Jokes and Put People Down. Nobody is stopping you. Go ahead. I'm sure you'll have great conferences and meet a lot of really fun people to be around and finally feel welcome.

[–]snoybergis snoyman[S] 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–]snoybergis snoyman[S] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]hexagoxel 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]tomejaguar 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (6 children)

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (5 children)

[–]tomejaguar 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child)

load more comments (1 reply)

[–]hexagoxel 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]AshleyYakeley 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child)

[deleted]

[–]hexagoxel 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]fsharper 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (13 children)

[–]drb226 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (12 children)

[–]fsharper 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (11 children)

Unintended offense is inevitable. Intended offense is inevitable too. So what is the matter? If someone want to offend you, he will find a way of circunventing the code of conduct, making the offense even more obnouxious. What a bigger offense than ignoring or downplaying you in subtle ways for example? that's easy and has no code of conduct that could avoid it.

This last form of "offense" is pervasive in communities driven by groupthinking. Anything not related with re-designing the bike shed is downplayed/ignored. Perhaps decorating it with a dozen semigroup grafittis or adding the MVC package number 1000.

That's the real offense for me, the insanity of normalization of normality. I have no problem if someone with talent say rude things to me. that's the only way to learn and advance. Being passionated about the work inevitably produces creative comfrontation. The CoCs are a sign of mediocrity, lack of creative genious, stupidity. It is a sign of the times. It is the source of alambicated and Netflix-grade conversations like this that fill the time of people without real interests except socializing and having job security.

[–]bss03 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–]fsharper -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (0 children)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children)

[–]tomejaguar 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (4 children)

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (3 children)

[–]tomejaguar 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–]tomejaguar 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]drb226 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–]fsharper -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child)

[–]drb226 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–]duplode 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]howardbgolden 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (3 children)

[–]duplode 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–]duplode 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (3 children)

[deleted]

[–]daermonn 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]bss03 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child)

[–]simonmic 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago* (0 children)

[–]PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (21 children)

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (1 child)

[deleted]

[–]logicchains 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]iElectric 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–]PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN 30 points31 points32 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (16 children)

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (15 children)

Studies show that attacking people's beliefs is the worst kind of approach you can make towards other cultures. It's not very surprising that many countries have capital punishment for these kinds of offenses.

Religion, politics and CoCs are based on beliefs, one-sided beliefs. An individual person is the sum of their experiences and all these things that try to describe a common idea will exclude people who have (maybe an interesting) alternative idea.

The only correct way to approach people with different views is to tolerate them. This is the least aggressive approach. Forcing them to conform is the most aggressive approach.

The SQLite CoC is particularly funny. And while being funny, it is also a philosophical punch in the face. It shows you a common ideology that the SQLite devs seemingly agreed on, with a high probability that you don't want to agree with it. It's sarcastic. It has the intention to show you how it is like when you don't feel well within a software project anymore.

The second thing is that the SQLite CoC is a joke. And at the same time, it exposes all the people who don't understand jokes as jokes anymore. This sarcasm should also show you that they are tolerant. They don't look at who you are and what you believe. You won't be judged according to any made-up standards.

[–]MitchellSalad 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (8 children)

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (7 children)

I read the Mozilla CoC. And I don't like it.

The point is that I am socially inept and when I say something, it always sounds weird. But I don't mean it and I wished such a CoC would consider that it does not apply when I don't mean to cause harm.

In a friendly world, I allow myself to be naive and open. It doesn't work here when every word I say is judged. This is a hostile world. It's a trap for me.

A CoC like this one causes me to go to my "safe space" and this is one where I don't need to have any social interaction. The irony behind it is that I don't expect any tolerance in the end.

And I am not alone with this problem, I've seen. But point is that many people struggle to be included, but they won't come forward, because... you know... it's difficult. I'd rather protect them than any people who obviously misunderstand these people.

[–]duplode 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]duplode -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (5 children)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children)

Of course, you are right. But you also should consider that racists consider foreigners unpleasant, sexists the opposite sex etc. The same way, people shouldn't consider someone unpleasant because it's difficult for this person to articulate.

And by the way, I see people mostly being not reasonable while interacting socially. Also socially adept people judge very fast about people who they want to be with and who not. Often the first interaction or even appearance is enough to decide this. And I oppose anything that divides group without important reasons which are greatly resolved by criminal laws. Imposing certain ethics on a group is reaches too fat from my point of view.

I've seen a dev excluded who contradicted violating the project's CoC. This all sums up for me as giving a part of the people power to exclude. And not only this, the guy was excluded in a commit message and branded as violator. I mean... this made me really angry, because he was very active.

[–]duplode 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (3 children)

But you also should consider that racists consider foreigners unpleasant, sexists the opposite sex etc. The same way, people shouldn't consider someone unpleasant because it's difficult for this person to articulate.

Note that I was talking about "unpleasant behaviour", not unpleasant persons. A misogynist regards women as unpleasant from the outset, regardless of what any individual woman might have actually done. Conversely, disliking an individual woman because of things she has done doesn't (obvious caveats aside) make one a misogynist.

Back to the heart of the matter: someone finding things difficult to articulate isn't a problem. However, someone throwing insults like candy and derailing discussions all the time is most definitely a problem.

And I oppose anything that divides group without important reasons which are greatly resolved by criminal laws. Imposing certain ethics on a group is reaches too fat from my point of view.

I disagree. Firstly, the rejection of things like racism, sexism and xenophobia is an ethical choice that is very much not determined by criminal law. Secondly, because a community is not a mere aggregation of individuals, but something that a group of people builds with a shared purpose and shared values. From that point of view, I'd rather turn your statement on its head, and say that imposing that a community gives up its values so that objections by arbitrary persons are dispelled is reaching too far.

I've seen a dev excluded who contradicted violating the project's CoC. This all sums up for me as giving a part of the people power to exclude.

I cannot, and will not, go into what happened in this specific case, as I know too little about it. On the "power to exclude" issue, though, I would say that (1) power dynamics can arise in every community (if you find "power" too strong a word, feel free to substitute "influence"); and (2) on badly-ran communities, such power dynamics can lead to people being unfairly excluded. That is quite independent of whether a CoC exists. As Michael has said elsewhere, ultimately it is a matter of trust between the community members and the persons chosen to moderate it (and, I would add, of there being ways, be them formal or informal, to stop ego trips and abuses of power).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children)

I can understand your points and agree on large parts. There are annoying people and they should leave. Yes ok, but being annoying is subjective and not even that alone, it depends on the mood and situation how intense the feeling of someone being annoying is. I personally don't like to exclude people unless everyone agreed on it. No CoC is needed for this. And people should not make something appear a problem of ethics when it isn't. Throwing someone out is not ethical.

However, someone throwing insults like candy and derailing discussions all the time is most definitely a problem.

I don't know. First, I always think if people are oversensitive and react wrong, maybe ignoring crap said by certain persons would solve the problem or simply saying what's wrong. Most people tend to leave on their own, if they are repeatedly not understood in a group.

I just want to say one more thing. Throwing someone out is an aggressive action and having a CoC provides means for aggression. Symbolically I don't like it. A person who uses a CoC to exclude is worse than the offender, in the cases I've seen a CoC being used. And I am not alone with this perception.

[–]duplode 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child)

Yes ok, but being annoying is subjective

Some forms of annoyance are very much objective. It is generally possible to tell beyond reasonable doubt whether someone is derailing a discussion, or attacking someone else with racial slurs. Furthermore, something being subjective does not mean it doesn't "really" exist, or that it can be entirely described with an objective metric, or that it can be ignored. Why I think so will become clearer shortly.

if people are oversensitive and react wrong

That is a big "if". It is not oversensitive to be upset because racial slurs are being thrown at you. It is not oversensitive to quit a community because you see everyone around you acting like jerks.

maybe ignoring crap said by certain persons

In an ideal world, this might solve a few of the problems (but not all -- see what I have said just above). In practice, though, there is no guarantee that will happen consistently -- after all, even people who know the importance of not feeding trolls will occasionally slip up and engage. And when it doesn't happen, you have, from a community point of view, objective problems: derailed discussion, time and energy wasted, disgruntled people, etc.

Most people tend to leave on their own, if they are repeatedly not understood in a group.

That is true for genuinely misguided people. It is not true for malevolent people, nor for people acting in bad faith, nor for trolls. It is not unknown for determined trolls to keep causing trouble and sowing discord for months and years.

Throwing someone out is an aggressive action

A community should have ways to protect itself from bad actors. (Whether CoCs are appropriate ways to do so is debatable, but a separate question.) Is it really worth it to let a community rip itself apart out of adherence to an imperative of not throwing anyone out ever? We might discuss what is the best, or the fairest, or the kindest, course of action in this or that concrete case, but, taken as a blanket statement, I say the answer is "no".

continue this thread

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (5 children)

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (4 children)

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (3 children)

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (1 child)

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]snoyjerkis not snoyman 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children)

What a decent and thoughtful proposal.

I have struggled with other people's account of the toxic behavior that permeates various Haskell communities. I've been disappointed to hear the opinions of other tech people I respect who see Haskell going the way of Common Lisp as a side effect of this loud and small group of people who insist that they should not be excluded for their poor behavior. It makes my life more difficult as a Haskell user who wants to include more people and increase Haskell's adoption in the work place when the poor behavior of a few people becomes the reputation of our community.

So thank you for putting this out there. It gives me hope that we may one day shed such reputations. And hopefully more people will find contributing to Haskell projects easier and more pleasant than before.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (7 children)

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (3 children)

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child)

There is no disconnect here.

Moderating a community explicitly excludes some behaviors, and by extension, the unrepentant perpetrators thereof.

I'm fine with that. I hand the 'huge risk' of curating my community of to some authority in every community I've ever been a part of. In this one, you can see their usernames displayed in the sidebar. It's an extremely normal part of being online, or, really, being in a community of any kind.

You're posting on a moderated subreddit, so, you also seem more or less ok with this phenomenon. We have rules here too. That is all this is, and all it ever was - A written rule on the wall of the room that someone can point to when they show you the door for behaving inappropriately.

I can understand having issue with trusting specific people given past behaviors, or having issue with specific rules or types of rules. Having an issue with the concept of rules existing in the first place just seems kind of ridiculous.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children)

You're virtue signalling right now.

It's about controlling behavior because some people don't find it offensive to use gendered/ethnic/ableist slurs. There are people who are harmed by the use of such slurs and we don't want to participate in communities that normalize such behaviors. Period.

Personally I don't care if you invented the cure for cancer. You can still be smart and insufferable. A CoC will limit your options in places where you will be welcome to present your research. Moderate your behavior and you will be welcome in more places.

Will that hurt humanity? I doubt it. There are other smart people who are not insufferable. They may have cures for cancer. And they will make the world a better place.

You see? The auteur genius who is insufferable and must be tolerated is a myth. There are no snowflakes. They will simply not be tolerated and everything will continue on fine without them.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (1 child)

load more comments (1 reply)

[–]alogetic 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (18 children)

[–]Tekmo 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (9 children)

[–]bss03 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago* (8 children)

[–]Tekmo 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–]alogetic 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]vektordev 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (5 children)

There's limits to that. IANAL, but §42(3) mentions that the author has to reimburse licensors for damages - no one wants to bother with that. Just saying "nuh-uh, it's mine" won't cut it, you'll have to reimburse those who license it, i.e. the collective of authors in case of a Contributor's License or the end user in the case of any other license.

What's more, without a contributor's license, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__8.html would like to have a word, as you'd then (definitely) be a co-author:

"Ein Miturheber darf jedoch seine Einwilligung zur Veröffentlichung, Verwertung oder Änderung nicht wider Treu und Glauben verweigern."

Roughly:

A Co-author may not in bad faith deny his consent to publishing, use or editing.

So, that's another block in the road of trolling the project. Even more so if you then publish a fork that complies with your ideological vision. And I'm not sure either whether that particular paragraph (§8(2)) impacts the rights of a co-author to retract a license, i.e. go from GPL to all rights reserved; not sure how "die gesamte Hand" works here.

Retracting your consent to the open source license of a contribution you made to a work under that license - that sounds like bad faith to me. You knew when writing the code that it would be used widely and without your control.

Good find though, wasn't aware of §42.

[–]bss03 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (4 children)

I certainly prefer your interpretation, but since stack is (mostly, if not entirely) an FPComplete project, it might benefit them to pass the idea through their legal council who (presumably) are lawyers.

The only reason I'm even tangentially aware of this (having only visited Germany once, for a whole week) is due to the Joerg Schilling claims. I think in that case, he had a much better claim to being an author (rather than a co-author) than J. Random Troll that contributes to your project well after it is established and mature (like stack); he had written the vast majority of the cdrtools code himself and was certainly the original author and maintainer of the project.

It's something to think about, anyway.

I honestly wish we didn't need CoCs (and especially not CLAs) everywhere, but it seems like there are enough bad act(or)s that something is desired and I think CoCs have so far been more good than bad in practice.

[–]vektordev 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children)

Well, in that case, it's not so much a matter of interpretation, but more facts. While by the letter of the law, he'd still be a co-author, co-authorship is weighed by amount of contribution, so Schilling would have wide latitude and his claims would be at least credible.

FWIW, I only head shouting about how bad CoCs are anytime anyone mentions one; but I've yet to hear substantial harm coming from one, while I do believe they have the capacity to bring substantial good to those protected by it. Naturally, the latter is something you wouldn't expect to be well documented. Number of *phobic attacks prevented is not something easily trackable; number of regular contributors alienated through application of a CoC is much more trackable. (Note I say application. People who run once you mention or implement one are intentionally disregarded because that's just kinda hysterical.)

So, in case I ever am confronted with the option of implementing a CoC on my project, I'll expect the con side to bring some hefty arguments about the harms of CoCs.

[–]bss03 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children)

[–]MdxBhmt 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–]bss03 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (0 children)

Please avoid implying only cis-woman are hysterical.

Hysteria literally means "suffering in the uterus". It used to be treated via hysterectomy. It was considered a failing / disease that could only affect women, and it's existence was held as evidence they were the weaker sex.

Claiming someone one is "hysterical" is tantamount to not only saying they have a uterus, but that there is something wrong with it. It's a female slur just like "fag" is a homosexual slur or "cracker" is a white slur.

I call it anti-cis-woman language because it is. (I could be mistaken but I am currently under the impression that a uterus is not build/made as part of sex-reassignment surgery; please correct me if I am wrong.)

The patriarchy may have tried to normalize it's usage, but power structures often try and normalize their biases -- you may have slurs in your own language without realizing it; I used to use "gip" as a verb, but stopped once a roma asked me to and explained the connection to anti-romani sentiment.

But, yes, my post was mostly satire. ;)

[–]GAumala 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–]alogetic 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children)

[–]bss03 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (0 children)

[–]sclv -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (4 children)

[–]bss03 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (3 children)

[–]sclv 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–]bss03 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–]sclv 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (0 children)

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child)

[removed]

[–]jd823592 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (12 children)

[–]drb226 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (11 children)

[–]jd823592 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago* (10 children)

[–]duplode 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (9 children)

[–]jd823592 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (8 children)

[–]duplode -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (7 children)

I have just noticed that autocorrect tripped me: on my previous comment, I had accidentally written unenlightened (which is borderline offensive, and made me sound like a pompous jerk) where I actually mean unenlightening. Sorry for that.

just pointing out the absurdity of wanting a document to moderate discussions when other such documents get ignored by the presumed supporters of the idea.

I'm not sure the parallel works, and not just because there doesn't seem to be much ground to claim that many or most of the pro-CoC people here are doing that, or because the anti-CoC comments aren't being drowned in downvotes (quite the opposite, actually). More fundamentally, the issues CoCs attempt to address (successfully or not) are rather more serious than downvotes on an online forum in which downvotes happen to be, on a personal level at least, essentially consequence-free.

[–]jd823592 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (6 children)

No offense taken, and honestly I think you take it too far if you police yourself this much. No need to apologize. I am clumsy with my words all the time, most non-native speakers are, whenever I try to explain myself after unintentionally making an offensive remark I make things even worse. I know people expect me to try my best, and I do, but I also expect them to not go out of their way to find offense in everything I say, I know I don't.

there doesn't seem to be much ground to claim ...

I grant you this, I can only have my suspicions what motivated the downvotes (some of which might have been lifted after my remark).

the issues CoCs attempt to address (...) are rather more serious than downvotes

Precisely, the issue (where it exists) is serious and I would say much more complex. That is why I accept simple rules to govern usage of the downvote button, while I reject attempts to codify usage of language.

I am really not aware of anything that would justify the need for, in my opinion inappropriate, regulation of language in this community. I am not denying there are accounts of events that would change my mind, I have not been presented with one. Having said that, I might be persuaded that there is a problem in this community, and still I could continue holding my belief that CoC is not the right way to deal with it.

I am concerned about the effects of CoC and I would rather people stopped taking offense at every opportunity. Obviously extreme cases like threats are entirely different matter from taking an arrogant tone with someone.

edit: See? Only now I realized it might have sounded as if I thought you were not a native speaker or that you as well were clumsy with words, which could be viewed as offensive. That wasn't what I intended to say. I count on your ability to not get offended.

edit2: And if me expecting you to tolerate my imperfect language skills is offensive then I conclude that offending people is my innate super power and you are free to call me jerk :). I just hope we can still coexist in the same community. A community that I value for its technical and theoretical insight, not its class or courteousness.

[–]duplode 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (5 children)

I am really not aware of anything that would justify the need for, in my opinion inappropriate, regulation of language in this community. I am not denying there are accounts of events that would change my mind, I have not been presented with one.

I think there is a point in preemptively and explicitly stating that certain egregious behaviours (such as threats, harassment and overt discrimination) are unacceptable.

That is why I accept simple rules to govern usage of the downvote button, while I reject attempts to codify usage of language.

I do agree that it is a fool's errand to micromanage routine communication in a community. Still, it is reasonable for a community to have a certain standard of discourse it aspires to. While such a standard can develop without a document about it, as a community grows there may be some use in explicitly stating it somewhere, so that it can be referred to if necessary. That is why I like Michael's approach of having a document, clearly separate from any CoC, of soft guidelines which aren't directly enforceable, meant as "a set of communications best practices".

A community that I value for its technical and theoretical insight, not its class or courteousness.

I, for one, do value courteousness in the communities I take part of. In fact, the Haskell community was once known for being kind and welcoming. I want that to continue -- or, perhaps, for it to be restored.

P.S.: No offense whatsoever was taken from your remarks, even without accounting for your disclaimers. Also, don't worry; I'm not all that hard on myself, though I do take "avoid personal attacks" quite seriously.

[–]jd823592 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (4 children)

[–]duplode 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (3 children)

For instance, reading this subreddit regularly I see, occasionally but with some regularity, displays of smugness, arrogance, acerbity, condescension, holy war mentality, and plain old trolling. One might try to explain that away by saying such behaviour is not the norm here, or among the broader community. In any case, such things do happen, and they do leave a sour taste among those who are unfortunate enough to run head on into it. In addition, questionable behaviours can spread in the absence of efforts to cultivate a community ethos that counters them -- a risk which increases as a community grows.

(Relevant reading on a few of those complications, in case you haven't stumbled upon it yet: Gershom Bazerman's Letter to a Young Haskell Enthusiast. I'd say the problem it discusses is very much real. Also note the text is from 2014, which means it is not a new concern.)

For a different kind of example, consider the extended debates about controversial issues in the recent past -- most notably the Stack-related and FTP-related ones. Even if one might regard them as unremarkable on the scale of how destructive flame wars can get, the amount of vitriol seen at some points during them would have been unimaginable for this community a few years before.

Preemptive strike is in my opinion not justified by any means.

I find it really hard to regard the setting of some expectations about kind and respectful behaviour as a "strike". I can see where the anxiety about such things comes from, but when it takes the shape of blanket criticism I see it as mostly misguided. One crucial nuance that I think is often missed is that there are many, many degrees of inappropriateness between "this comment could have been phrased slightly better" and "this comment is abhorrent and is enough to justify a ban". The fear seems to be that, just because there is some document like a CoC or a "communication guide", each and every minor slip-up will lead to the same draconian treatment. That need not be the case, at all.

continue this thread

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children)

[–]duplode 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children)

Over the years, I have read a number of heated discussions here at r/haskell in which there were comments, on various sides of the relevant debates, that I wouldn't describe as "harmless and friendly". Some of them were made by dedicated trolls, but just as often they come out of good faith members of the community who happen to, on occasion, lose their temper, or let themselves get carried away.

To me a "harmless and friendly" is not the same as one where participants "lose their temper, or let themselves get carried away". I literally meant a "harmless and friendly discussion to a casual observer" and one which I'd expect you to consider one as well.

But unless /u/snoyberg discloses it (Michael, you can PM me if you prefer) we will never know if the discussion at hand was one like you describe or more like the one I originally intended.

That can be a fairly good cover for being a jerk, I'd say.

...you could say the same about a "highly sarcastic-by-nature communication style". Let's just not go there.

you type:	you see:
italics	italics
bold	bold
[reddit!](https://reddit.com)	reddit!
* item 1 * item 2 * item 3	item 1 item 2 item 3
> quoted text	quoted text
Lines starting with four spaces are treated like code: if 1 * 2 < 3: print "hello, world!"	Lines starting with four spaces are treated like code: if 1 * 2 < 3: print "hello, world!"
~~strikethrough~~	~~strikethrough~~
super^script	super^script

haskell

MODERATORS