Timeline for We'd like your feedback on our new Code of Conduct!
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 6, 2018 at 0:33 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | This only works if we're honest with each other, @Lamak. If we start trying to guess at whether folks are being sincere, guess at how others will react, deny our own feelings... Then it becomes a twisted mess where no one dare speak up lest they be misinterpreted. I asked an honest question, intended to establish a baseline for discussion; if that bothers you, Seth, or anyone else... Let me know, or flag it, or send us an email. I, or a moderator, or a teammate will take that seriously. That's been my policy for as long as I've been here; I've edited or deleted plenty of messages as a result. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 21:21 | comment | added | Lamak | Not directly, but since this is the meta post about the CoC, there's still a use on bringing it up, specially because the comment did sounded condescending....just like your last one did | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 21:19 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Did this negatively affect you, @Lamak? | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 21:18 | comment | added | Lamak | @Shog9 I do understand you, really. I just want to highlight how the fact of having something like this: "Sometimes, people unconsciously say things that negatively affect others. Even if this wasn’t your intent, apologize and move on." can affect a discussion. Specially if anything can be interpreted the wrong way by someone | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 21:15 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Again, not a put-down @Lamak. I completely understand the concern over the optics of doing a CoC change in this context, but... If we're going to discuss the text of the proposed CoC itself... I really do want folks to read it. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 20:29 | comment | added | Lamak | @Shog9 I agree with you about that, but my comment was meant to bring to the conversation that "being right" doesn't really matter when posting a comment, and that one should never use it to "subtly put-down" another user...no matter how wrong they were | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 20:15 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Honest question, @Lamak. This answer that we're commenting under - and my first comment - are primarily focused on the meta aspects of the CoC, the context in which it is proposed, the "perception problem" as Magisch put it. The one paragraph that touches on the CoC itself characterizes it as "one sided, skewed". Seth appears to be riffing on that, suggesting that the proposal "ignores years of community feedback" and doesn't "mention quality rules" - this is literally true (it doesn't contain the exact phrase "quality rules") but inaccurate - 2/4 "expectations" are aimed directly at askers. | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 16:16 | comment | added | Lamak | @Shog9 not to be a trouble maker, but the "Did you read it?" comment sounded like a "subtle put-down" to me | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 9:14 | history | edited | terdon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Sorry, pedant (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loathe) and some other minor changes
|
| Jul 4, 2018 at 7:29 | comment | added | Zach Lipton | Just as you are hesitant to bring up Stack Exchange to friends, I'm hesitant to encourage anyone to come to a site where members of the community consider it to be too much additional effort to be on their best behavior and consider the perspective of the person they're talking to when offering criticism. If those aren't ideals we can agree to aim for, recognizing that we're all fallible, why have moderation at all? What's the point of having this community if it's not a place where we agree to make an effort to treat each other well? | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 20:43 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @ɥʇǝS: The only "sides" are the Jerk and the non-Jerks. New, old, high-rep, low-rep, all that is irrelevant. What matters is behavior. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 20:43 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @ɥʇǝS: "Other than that one aforementioned sentence it immediately dives into giving feedback, not taking." I don't see now "taking feedback" is relevant. If you hurl abuse at someone for any reason, that's against the rules. If you post a snarky condemnation for any reason, that's against the rules. You seem to have a persecution complex, that you're overly sensitive to criticism you see that can be aimed your way if there isn't criticism that is aimed specifically at "them" too. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 20:42 | comment | added | ɥʇǝS | @NicolBolas Which is a red herring. You can't stop the abuse, but you can take steps to not give them more tools to add to their abuse. Especially tools that make it seem like the site rules are on their side. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 20:39 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @ɥʇǝS: "People started abusing Jay’s blogpost the day/day-after it came out to tell off people leaving quality comments. Not rude comments. Normal, everyday comments." And people were telling people off for leaving "quality comments" the day before Jay's blog post. And the day before that. And before that. People have been hurling abuse at "normal, everyday comments" since the site began. Such people do not need an excuse to rage against someone for pointing out their inadequacies. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 19:54 | comment | added | ɥʇǝS | Just about every other possible bad behavior is spelled out, so why the reluctance to be explicit about the quality guidelines? Again, you’ll forgive people for thinking you don’t want them to be explicit. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 19:54 | comment | added | ɥʇǝS | @NicolBolas People started abusing Jay’s blogpost the day/day-after it came out to tell off people leaving quality comments. Not rude comments. Normal, everyday comments. So yes, the CoC does need to be more explicit about actually following the quality guidelines or people are going to abuse it in the exact same way. A better ask page is great, but that’s not the code of conduct which is what everyone looks to for conduct rules. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 19:53 | comment | added | ɥʇǝS | So, as I said, you’ll forgive people for thinking SE stopped caring about quality or their mission statement (heck the CoC has a radically different mission statement than SE has ever had. Hopefully that’s just a wording issue). And no, half of it is not about following guidelines and accepting feedback. Other than that one aforementioned sentence it immediately dives into giving feedback, not taking. And then it is never mentioned again. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 19:52 | comment | added | ɥʇǝS | I did read it, yes. Your comment feels rather disingenuous. Tim points out in the Q we don’t want to be too ambiguous and so everything else is expanded and expounded on, but there’s literally one sentence about actually writing quality material and it just says “follow the guidelines”. Again, as the Q says “Codes of conduct help identify your community to the outside world” and yet there is one sentence about the networks different and special quality requirements. It doesn’t even mention in passing that this isn’t your traditional forum or wiki. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 19:00 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @ɥʇǝS: "it'd mention following quality rules" What do you think "make it as easy as possible for others to help you" and "Follow the guidelines" mean? What more do you want, a detailed listing of them? "And yet here we are doing exactly what the dumpster fire wants instead of (not even in addition to) listening to your own community." Because nobody in the community wanted an improved ask-question page. Oh right, they did, and it's being worked on. Please stop spreading this notion that nothing else is being done. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 18:59 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Did you read it, @ɥʇǝS? Compare with the current "be nice" policy, which has no advice aimed at askers / new users at all, but asks that others give them special consideration. Half the guidelines in the proposed CoC are advising askers to follow the guidelines and be accepting of edits and feedback. That's kind of a big step up, IMHO. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 18:52 | comment | added | ɥʇǝS | You'll forgive people for "being unable to see the difference" when this continues to happen repeatedly. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 18:52 | comment | added | ɥʇǝS | @Shog9 And yet here we are doing exactly what the dumpster fire wants instead of (not even in addition to) listening to your own community. Now maybe that's coincidence. Pretty much everyone agrees that a better CoC isn't a bad thing by any means, but this draft still completely ignores years of community feedback again so it really doesn't feel like a coincidence anymore. You'd think in a code of conduct it'd mention following quality rules. But it doesn't, which is exactly what the dumpster fire wants. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 18:51 | comment | added | Stephan | You know, this is a pretty good summary of how I feel about things too. This used to be a "leave your politics at the door" kind of place, and certain verbiage lately has raised some concern that they're headed down the path the twitter administrators did a few years ago. There's no fire yet, but I'm seeing sparks of particular common phrases crop up more an more in the blogs that make me worry we may be a few years away from Verified User badges and censor bots. This is a place for helping people learn things they have questions about. Not another place for political grandstanding. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 18:19 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Bit of advice: tell your friends to ignore Twitter. Twitter is a trash fire. You don't want to ignore a trash fire if it's headed toward you, but... You don't look to a trash fire for advice on how to build a useful living space. We're looking at the mess on Twitter as a sign that we need to clear the proverbial brush from around our foundation, not as an example of how to build a healthy, nurturing community. If your friends can't see the difference, maybe they need to step back from the fire a bit. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 17:47 | comment | added | Christian Rau | @NicolBolas I'm not sure this answer is in any way making a black-and-white statement about whose concerns are more valid rather than adding a very reasonable concern on top of the existing concerns and strengthening the fact that, well, this isn't a particularly easy topic to tackle. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 17:44 | comment | added | Magisch | @NicolBolas I care about the perception of my friends more because it comes up as an argument that is tedious and becoming harder to disprove when I talk to them. I don't talk to random people on twitter on any consistent basis. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 17:41 | history | edited | This_is_NOT_a_forum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Active reading. [<http://stackoverflow.com/legal/trademark-guidance> (the last section) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Marxist#Adjective>].
|
| Jul 3, 2018 at 17:36 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @Magisch: It's funny. When the SO staff posted a blog about "percieved[sic] issues" with regard to SO not being welcoming, lots of people said that perceptions don't matter, only facts, and if nobody could prove that there was a problem, then there wasn't. But now perception matters. It's probably not a coincidence that in one case, it's their perception and in the other case, it's the perception of someone else. So whose perception should we care about more: you/your friends, or the people saying that we're being unwelcoming? | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 17:05 | comment | added | Magisch | @NicolBolas This answer is about how the recent efforts affect my recommendations of stack to friends and colleagues. A percieved issue is an issue whether or not it's actually enforced. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 17:03 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @Magisch: I don't recall community moderators posting about such things, but yes, there are people who want to give favorable treatment to first questions. There are people who also want to post unpleasant things on first questions. Until actual site policy changes to promote one of these sides, why not just ignore them? | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 17:01 | comment | added | Magisch | @NicolBolas I don't either. I'm thinking stuff like exempting them from downvotes or closevotes for first questions (which I've seen posted as policy statements by moderators before, even) | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 16:59 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @Magisch: It depends entirely on how you define "cut new users extra slack". Some people feel that not being able to post, "you can Google that in 5 minutes" is cutting new users slack. I can't really agree with that interpretation. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 16:57 | comment | added | Magisch | @NicolBolas Outside of practice, i've seen many people argue publicly that we should cut new users extra slack and shaming people who don't do so. This is part of the perception problem I'm describing. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 16:56 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | "Excuse mistakes and non adherence to the rules and standards" We are? I don't see any expectations of that. It's simply a matter of how you respond to such things. | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 16:50 | comment | added | Makoto | "People on Twitter with an axe to grind" I should've used that line... | |
| Jul 3, 2018 at 16:49 | history | answered | Magisch | CC BY-SA 4.0 |