Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're getting downvoted but I think this is absolutely right... people are simply going to disagree with each others' definition of "good faith."


Right. Adam tells Ben to go die in a fire, and Ben says, "Come on, moderators, that's obviously a violation of the CoC." Then Adam says, "No, because I was only responding to Ben's offensive and unwelcoming language when he referred to a 'master' repository. I've compiled a list of Ben's violations, and I demand a review according to section 3, subsection D of the code...."

A good moderator will shut that nonsense down immediately, but a good moderator wouldn't need a CoC to do it. All the CoC does is give the troublemaker a tool to start playing rules lawyer, in the hope that the moderator will get tired of it and give in.

Some people think the answer is to have a CoC that's too simple for rules lawyering, like a one line "Be excellent to each other." But even that can be twisted, so it would be better as a project motto than as an official CoC.


Jerks will be jerks without a CoC, and jerks will try to turn the CoC into a weapon when there is one. Yeah, that figures.

Sooner or later it boils down to someone reasonable enforcing some boundaries, with or without a CoC.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: