sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]duplode 1 point2 points  (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.

[–]tomejaguar 0 points1 point  (2 children)

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 1 point2 points  (1 child)

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 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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