Timeline for The second draft of our Code of Conduct is available for feedback and review
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 23, 2018 at 14:51 | comment | added | Amadeus | @TimPost I received over 100 upvotes on that answer without a single flag, and the moderator changed it. So what if the moderator is NOT reacting to flags by other users, but out of what may be personal animus or bias against what at least 100 others did not find objectionable? (No telling how many read it, without flagging it, in order to get 100+ upvotes). Clearly even on IPS moderators don't care about the 44 other 'damns', your unilateral change of Jeff's post to make a new policy doesn't fix selective, biased enforcement. I never saw a flag on my answer and was never notified of one. | |
| Jul 23, 2018 at 14:38 | comment | added | user50049 | I just updated the answer to that question that Jeff originally wrote. If you try to take a little liberty and use certain milder words for style and emphasis and someone objects to it (especially a moderator, who is likely reacting to flags from other users) - take it out. | |
| Jul 23, 2018 at 14:28 | comment | added | user50049 | If it: (1) is questionable and (2) creates a disruption then you probably need to consider changing it. Also, Jeff has not worked here for quite a while now, which doesn't make him an ideal source of current policy :) He was also, sometimes famously, not particularly adept at following his own advice, just like the rest of us. | |
| Jul 21, 2018 at 11:30 | comment | added | Amadeus | @AnneTheAgile You misread read that. It says as a verb, a synonym for "damn" is "curse". I did not use it as a verb, I used it as an adjective for emphasis (his damn ear), in the same sense as "damned": merriam-webster.com/dictionary/damned which has no synonym "curse" or "swear". Now that this is cleared up, by your Merriam-Webster criterion, if I change it to "damned" I am fine? IMHO, speaking as both a college professor and a professional paid writer, I am going for the most memorable lessons; and in this particular answer about cruelty to a dog, emotionalism was warranted. | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 22:28 | comment | added | AnneTheAgile | 1.A simple dictionary check shows that it is a curse word: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/damn . ; 2.Imho we are going for the most objective, least emotional answers. That's what is professional courtesy. | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 20:14 | comment | added | Amadeus | @NicolBolas It is my post, and I think it has diminished emotional impact without the emphasis. Obviously removing the word "damn" is censorship, otherwise what is the point of moderating? Censorship is a good thing, there are offensive expletives that should be censored. If you think "damn" is one of those expletives, then you are seriously misusing the term. If you don't think "damn" is one of them, then its removal is arbitrary and inconsistent because then it's removal was not done for any valid "be nice" reason at all! | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 20:09 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @Amadeus: As an example of "arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement", your example is pretty... trivial. Nothing meaningful was changed by removing that word. You have not been prevented from communicating the information you wanted to communicate. As such, I don't see any genuine problems from this "arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement". If you think removing the word "damn" is censoring, then you are seriously misusing the term. | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 19:14 | comment | added | Amadeus | @HDE226868 On the contrary, it is an example of what is wrong with the CoC, it is too vague to prevent moderators from exercising power out of personal irritation or animus. As the new CoC is written, almost anything a moderator doesn't like can be censored on the grounds it might make someone, somewhere, someday, uncomfortable. There is nothing in that ensures consistency or due process or allows any sort of appeal or vote on it. My situation is an example of this arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement actually happening. | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 18:59 | comment | added | HDE 226868 | @Amadeus None of this has any relevance to the Code of Conduct, because the use of the word wasn't okay before the CoC and isn't going to be okay after it's implemented. If the word exists in posts, it's more likely just because it hasn't been seen. Moderators can't see every post; we just can't. | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 18:32 | comment | added | Amadeus | @HDE226868 My point is; moderators are fond of pointing at Jeff Atwood's response to "expletives" or quoting it to justify their idea that "damn" is "not nice," while the other link shows he used it himself (reportedly along with "crap"): Clearly indicating his definition of "expletive" did not include mild language a majority of adults use in common conversation. As for answers with "damn": 44 on IPS, 54 on Academia, 132 on Writing, and 3853 on Stack Overflow. Clearly this prohibition is selectively enforced. A recipe for moderators exercising prejudice, like cops & traffic law. | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 18:14 | comment | added | Amadeus | @Catija I made that change from "god damn" to "damn" immediately after the rollback, specifically to make it less offensive. If you are fine with only "damn" then I'll leave it that way; otherwise if you think it offensive either way, why mention the difference? Your note says it will be discussed on meta, but now you say you just don't want to allow any discussion at all. I mentioned "atheism" as another example of my belief I have been targeted elsewhere by a moderator for discussing atheism in a context where religion was specifically the nature of the OP question (on writing fiction). | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 16:41 | comment | added | Catija | Also, it's worth noting that your initial edit specifically said "god damn", it was removed by two different moderators three times as unnecessary and offensive until you tried with only "damn" (after rolling it back yet again to "god damn") and then specifically pinged me to let me know that you'd made the change. At that point, I was tired of the edit warring, rolled back and locked the post to prevent it from continuing. As a note, I'm also an Atheist, so the edit has nothing to do with offending my personal beliefs. | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 14:56 | comment | added | Catija | As to being an Atheist - in whichever context, are you saying that as a statement of fact or with the intent of being controversial? Going to one of our religious sites and proselytizing for Atheist (or any other) views isn't going to fly. Mentioning your beliefs (or lack thereof) in a general discussion (say in chat) should be fine. Context matters. | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 14:23 | comment | added | HDE 226868 | I definitely would note cite some of Jeff's writing as acceptable language. He hasn't been with SO for the better part of a decade, and we definitely don't put up with that sort of language. | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 14:16 | comment | added | Amadeus | @Jǝssǝ Except it isn't, as I said, there are literally thousands of answers including the word "damn." Making this extremely selectively enforced. | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 12:39 | comment | added | hat | Even "mild" language is not necessary, and it is not professional either. It also may offend sensitive users, so whether Jeff or a 1 rep user uses any 'questionable' language, it should be removed. | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 12:18 | history | answered | Amadeus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |