Timeline for The second draft of our Code of Conduct is available for feedback and review
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 31, 2018 at 9:32 | comment | added | Masked Man | @JourneymanGeek Yeah, that sounded like the right thing to do to me as well, but instead they decided to keep those jokes around because of "historical" values. I don't really get it, but I guess it is something akin to Wikipedia's Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, except for the "deleted" part. I find it very confusing when people define new rules/laws/guidelines/code, etc. and then say that it doesn't apply in these specific reasons because of some Noodle Incident. | |
| Jul 31, 2018 at 9:29 | comment | added | Masked Man | @rene Well, thankfully, at least witty comments have not been disallowed. :-) | |
| Jul 31, 2018 at 8:13 | comment | added | rene Mod | I'm known for my pretty interesting interpretations ... I'm also often wrong. | |
| Jul 31, 2018 at 7:55 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | I don't really think punishment ought to be retroactive. However if a question no longer meets the standards of the site - in terms of tone or content, voting to close appropriately seems like the right thing to do. As for the rep, meh, I don't really think it should be special cased and ought to be treated like any other deleted post. The NARQiness is the real issue here | |
| Jul 31, 2018 at 7:52 | comment | added | Masked Man | Ok, so jokes and sarcasm are not allowed in the comments, but they are allowed in the posts? That's a pretty interesting interpretation of CoC. | |
| Jul 31, 2018 at 7:47 | comment | added | rene Mod | The CoC is not meant to govern content. That is where the per-meta sites is for. So, if historical jokes in post content were allowed, they still are under the new CoC. | |
| Jul 31, 2018 at 7:34 | comment | added | Masked Man | @rene I have now removed the 4th example. Can we now focus on the actual question? To reiterate, are "historical" jokes allowed by the CoC? | |
| Jul 31, 2018 at 7:33 | history | edited | Masked Man | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Removing last example
|
| Jul 31, 2018 at 6:56 | comment | added | rene Mod | If a post is a bad joke, saying so in a comment should not be met with hostility. If a post with a bad joke is on-topic and can stay on the site/should be moderated is still governed on the per-meta-site. The exchanges in the conversation are more governed by the CoC then actual content (but that doesn't mean that in posts we now allow to be rude / joking / sarcastic) but I don't think that was a huge problem (maybe on sites like IPS or the religion sites this is different) | |
| Jul 31, 2018 at 6:55 | comment | added | rene Mod | If anything, they apply to existing exchanges between users, yes. But in that case you need to link to comments, not posts because I honestly don't see how posts by itself (if not rude/low quality) will be subject as a whole to the CoC. Parts of it, maybe. Edit old posts, sure but if your use of the word delete refers to a whole Q/A I feel we're overreaching the goal. I don't think the CoC is primarily about the content itself. It is about those that provide the content and those that share their opinion about that content. | |
| Jul 31, 2018 at 6:45 | comment | added | Masked Man | @rene The question may not be a joke, but it has been locked? Nonetheless, that is not really my point. My point is does the new CoC apply to existing jokes, which they have themselves kept around for "historical" reasons? | |
| Jul 31, 2018 at 6:37 | comment | added | rene Mod | That last example does not read as a joke to me. Does that make this answer a joke? On a more serious note: I assumed most of the concerns are about comments. And while the avoid jokes could certainly apply to answers to some extent, I think it would be pretty unwelcoming if a fresh question gets called out for being a joke. | |
| Jul 31, 2018 at 6:19 | history | answered | Masked Man | CC BY-SA 4.0 |