On 02/01/15 23:50, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I've been extremely reluctant to have any sort of official conduct code. I prefer a gentle nudge on a case by case basis, and just deleting the posts of incorrigible trolls.
Yes, I'm aware of that, and I do have a lot of sympathy with your point of view.
Leading by example, implicit expectations of good conduct, and peer pressure can be amazingly effective.
All very true.
A code of conduct that says things like "don't harass others, no illegal content, etc." are just pointless, patronizing and frankly insulting. If someone wants to behave badly, is a code of conduct really going to change their mind?
As regards the specific provisions you cite, sure, that stuff is almost always annoying and patronizing. But I think that what I was proposing was slightly more subtle.
I do think there's a big difference between friendly guidelines, versus a "code of conduct". The most obvious is that the former are intended to be helpful advice, not a list of expectations.
Caltech, which I attended, was very influential on me in that it is the only school in the world that has a real honor system. Nobody else has the guts to try it. I've had good success applying the principles of it ever since, and this forum is one of them. Essentially, the default attitude is to trust that people are honest and decent. I don't tell them how to be honest and decent, I just assume that they are. It works amazingly well.
I agree. However, I think that the ability to rely on an honour system does depend to a certain extent on the numbers of people you are dealing with.
One of the benefits of guidelines or codes of conduct is not so much in instructing people what to do, as much as in constraining the leadership or authority figures in an organization to behave fairly and consistently in acting against troublemakers. This becomes quite apparent in some moderated forums where the "moderation" in practice amounts to "What ticks off the current moderator at this particular moment". Such communities are rarely fun to be part of.
Obviously D does not have such a problem right now, but as the number of people active on the forums grows, there are inevitably going to be more and more instances of people behaving antisocially, and that does in turn make it more important to have some mechanism to ensure they are dealt with fairly and not arbitrarily.
There are also some particular personality traits that can lead people to have problems understanding how their behaviour is impacting on others -- obvious examples are people on some parts of the autistic spectrum or people who are experiencing mental health issues. Firm guidelines can sometimes be helpful here in terms of defining clear boundaries that people can look to when they may not entirely trust their own judgement. They can also be _very_ important in helping to ensure that other community members do not victimise someone who seems to be acting antisocially, but may in fact be experiencing issues that prevent them from realizing how they are coming across.
I've noticed that the D community is an unusually honorable and decent group of people. Maybe that's due in some part to implicitly expecting them to be so, or maybe that's my own hubris. But I am extremely unwilling to risk that by posting a "code of conduct" that assumes people need lessons in how to behave.
If you think of it less as an attempt to tell people how to behave, and more of a sanity check for community leaders to think, "Hang on, am I right to call out this person for their behaviour?", then a code of conduct can make more sense. In the (hopefully rare) event that a community member does need to be dealt with firmly, it can also be helpful to have something consistent to point to to explain such decisions.
That said, I don't see any pressing need for something formal at this point in time. Some friendly suggestions, guidelines or advice -- that's another thing and doesn't need to be provided in a formal way.
