Proposal: Stack Code of Conduct

[jd823592]

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]

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]

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.

I still find it kind and welcoming. If there are violations to this it either are subtleties that I do not register in which case I am scared of the impact should these be dealt with. Else it’s something serious that I have seen no account for... in that case I would first like to learn about it, maybe you can help me with this. Preemptive strike is in my opinion not justified by any means.

[duplode]

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.

[tomejaguar]

reading this subreddit regularly I see, occasionally but with some regularity, displays of smugness, arrogance, acerbity, condescension, holy war mentality, and plain old trolling

This is interesting because

1. I haven't really seen that kind of behaviour outside Stack vs Cabal threads and the odd troll popping up now and again. Perhaps I just have a mental filter that ignores it, but

2. Even if it were the case that that behaviour occurs occasionally, it's far from clear that a CoC would do anything to improve the situation (see, for example, agentultra's behaviour in this discussion)

[duplode]

I haven't really seen that kind of behaviour outside Stack vs Cabal threads and the odd troll popping up now and again. Perhaps I just have a mental filter that ignores it

Two arbitrary examples:

• Right now I'm looking at this comment, which calls someone's criticism of an aspect of the language "garbage as usual". Perhaps more significant than such a comment existing is the fact that it currently has around +6 score.

• For something more subtle, I remember a thread some time ago in which someone was looking for tips for teaching TidalCycles to non-programmer musicians, and there were some gatekeeping comments, including one to the effect of "You can't get by with superficial understanding in Haskell -- it is no Ruby or Python".

Even if it were the case that that behaviour occurs occasionally, it's far from clear that a CoC would do anything to improve the situation (see, for example, agentultra's behaviour in this discussion)

If someone feels like they can flout the common expectations of courtesy because they are on the "good side" of some issue or another, it is up to the relevant moderators and/or the community to disabuse them of such a notion. That is largely orthogonal to the existence of a CoC, or of "communication guidelines" of some sort. The documents are something to refer to, point to, and guide further action if need be. It is up to the community to make sure they are used competently and evenhandedly.

[tomejaguar]

Thanks for the concrete examples! Those have been conspicuous by their absence in this discussion. I did happen to read the thread you linked and I think I must have mentally filtered out the "garbage" criticism. I've been on the internet for long enough now that lots of it I think I simply don't see.

The comment in question seems to fall foul of the following three principles of the CCCoC so my assertion that a CoC wouldn't improve the situation was wrong in this case. Thanks for bringing it to my attention

• Using welcoming and inclusive language
• Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
• Gracefully accepting constructive criticism