Forum moderation policy idea: No overly combative debating

[Dukc]

On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 19:25:29 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>
> I think using a posted set of guidelines like HN is a good way 
> to proceed. Starting by telling people they're violating the 
> guidelines a couple times is helpful, because it doesn't 
> require active moderation, which is a heavy tool. It doesn't 
> even require the moderator to point out the violation of the 
> guidelines.

This is orthogonal to what I proposed, but I agree.

Walter seems to think that a rule of honour trumps rule of law. 
That is, if there is a set of rules defining exactly what goes 
and what doesn't, that will always have loopholes and/or tendency 
to displace our internar wish to behave honourably. And that's 
why we don't want code of conduct.

I agree with all of that, except with the no-code conclusion. 
What we still could have, is a code that describes, but does not 
define what is acceptable. It would be like API documentation: 
sometimes wrong or out of date, but still your first reference 
when you're unsure about something. But it would not be the law - 
if it disagrees with the actual community norms, you could not 
hide behind it once you're told it's wrong.

Wikipedia rules are [just like 
that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means). IMO they show there can be written rules, with a code of honour still being the ultimate authority.

>> Only post things that are intended to move the language 
>> forward. Questioning the motives of others, accusing others of 
>> not wanting to improve the language, implying other posters 
>> are ignorant, and making unsupported claims about what 
>> "everyone wants" or "everyone needs" are all examples of 
>> things that do not move the language forward.

Mostly agreed. I'd probably be slightly more liberal though. If 
you start an off-topic thread on merits of FreeBSD versus OpenBSD 
and declare some strong opinions, that doesn't move the language 
forward but isn't what I want to see purged - assuming there's 
still respect maintained for those who disagree (or use the 
"inferior" system :D). I think even venting frustation over some 
problem, without any improvement proposal should be allowed - as 
long as it's about seeking some human empathy, and not the 
penance of those who erred.

I realise my proposal does leave a loophole for someone with a 
particulary vengeful attitude ("I hate to say this, but developer 
X has a disastrous record of \"good\" ideas. People need to be 
aware of this, because far too many have already wasted countless 
weekends on failed errands of his initiative."). But at least it 
minimises the attack surface. If trolls start exploiting this 
loophole they will at least start sounding like each other and 
therefore be easier to recognise and disregard.