For future context (should the wiki version change later), here’s the text we’re talking about:
This Code of Conduct applies to all online spaces run by the Codidact organisation, as well as official physical meetups of its community.
Be nice; be respectful
We’re deliberately not setting out everything that is and isn’t allowed - bring your common sense, and apply the spirit of this Code. The following are definitely not okay:
- Rudeness
- Hate speech
- Ad hominem attacks, whether directed at individual people or groups
- Any kind of harassment, for any reason
Always be constructive, especially when giving feedback. Always presume that others are acting with good intent.
If you see anything that appears to be a violation of this Code, flag or otherwise report it. We take reports seriously, and although we may not be able to follow up with you, we will take any necessary action. We’ll keep your identity private.
This seems like a good compromise to me. The intro paragraph about common sense is important, as is the part that says we actually follow up on flags (confidentially). (Still not sure about the part about physical meetups, but meh.)
But the more concrete details you specify the easier it is for it to be weaponized, and we have seen this happen. A code that’s more about principles, paired with moderators to make those human judgement calls and take action, is far more effective at supporting a community – which is why we’re all here.
People are complicated and multi-faceted, and that means well-intentioned people will sometimes say things that other well-intentioned people object to. When that happens, the best outcome is respectful mutual education, not a big stick. When a community is aware of an issue and can respectfully discuss it, we can collectively find ways to meet everyone’s needs. When some people get to instead threaten others, that fact alone makes it more difficult to even have that respectful discussion/problem-solving – as we have seen.