The NEW new "Be Nice" Policy ("Code of Conduct") — Updated with your feedback [duplicate]

Question

Update: Thanks for all the additional feedback below. We incorporated a lot of your suggestions, and this is going live (as https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice).

We're also looking at ways to get this in front of more new users when they sign up, to help them start off on the right foot.

Final version:

Be Nice.

Whether you've come to ask questions, or to generously share what you know, remember that we’re all here to learn, together. Be welcoming and patient, especially with those who may not know everything you do. Oh, and bring your sense of humor. Just in case.

That basically covers it. But these three guidelines may help:

1. Rudeness and belittling language are not okay. Your tone should match the way you'd talk in person with someone you respect and whom you want to respect you. If you don't have time to say something politely, just leave it for someone who does.

2. Be welcoming, be patient, and assume good intentions. Don't expect new users to know all the rules — they don't. And be patient while they learn. If you're here for help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you. Everyone here is volunteering, and no one responds well to demands for help.

3. Don't be a jerk. These are just a few examples. If you see them, flag them:

   • Name-calling. Focus on the post, not the person. That includes terms that feel personal even when they're applied to posts (like "lazy", "ignorant", or "whiny").
   • Bigotry of any kind. Language likely to offend or alienate individuals or groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. will not be tolerated. At all. (Those are just a few examples; when in doubt, just don't.)
   • Inappropriate language or attention. Avoid vulgar terms and anything sexually suggestive. Also, this is not a dating site.
   • Harassment and bullying. If you see a hostile interaction, flag it. If it keeps up, disengage — we'll handle it. If something needs staff attention, you can use the contact us link at the bottom of every page.

We're proud to be a large, user-driven space on the internet where name-calling, harassment, and other online nastiness are almost non-existent. It's up to all of us to keep it that way.

In summary, have fun, and be good to each other.

Original Post:

---

Okay, that was great feedback.

We recently proposed an update to our longstanding "Be Nice" policy, which was extremely well-received by the community.

But we also got a ton of awesome feedback on how to make it even better. The content and themes in this version are close to identical, but we re-organized it, and made a bunch of tweaks to and how we said things based on your input.

Some of your specific feedback that we incorporated:

• It had way too much emphasis on words George Carlin likes to say. (NSFW.)
• A number of terms, such as "expletive," "ad hominem," and a bunch of others simply do not mean what we think they do.
• Most people don't like to read; those who do, don't like to read much. (Too long, too many points, and lacked a concise summary.)
• Along the same lines, the old policy was elegant in its brevity.
• Folks assumed lawyers had something to do with all this. Not a single lawyer has seen this, so our tone was clearly a tad off in a bunch of ways, probably including "Code of Conduct", and a bunch of other very formal phrasings.
• There were too many items in the top-level list.
• The "list headers" didn't really convey what they were going for unless you read the detail, too.
• A few of the key ideas appeared in multiple sections.
• Some people wanted more detail and examples (for clarity), others wanted less (for broader applicability).
• The more you try to make a list of people who deserve to feel welcome, the more people focus on who's not on it, or who think it's designed by lawyers.
• A surprising number of us have really terrible bosses.
• Some people felt it didn't speak clearly enough to arrogance or condescending language (that some might argue wasn't technically "rude").
• "Assume good faith" was an important idea, and should be more visible.
• Terms like "civil" are well-meaning, but so broad that pretty much everyone always thinks that's what they're doing.
• The word "sex" appearing so often actually may have been conveying a tone that was essentially procedural, which was undercutting what we actually wanted to emphasize: Everyone should feel welcome here, and any behavior that makes women, people of color, old white dudes, or highly technical dogs feel unwelcome based on just being in that group will not fly.
• Updating the help center while we were getting your feedback made some feel like we wouldn't really use it. This should alleviate that concern, but the point is fair. This time, we're holding off on the update until we get any additional suggestions on this version.

We incorporated some aspects of all of the points above.

The big-picture changes that feedback drove:

1. It starts with a four-sentence policy that harkens back to the the original. You missed the elegance of the old guideline, and not everyone has long attention Smurfs. You were right, so there's now a very short intro that captures the policy and is very much in line with the original.
2. The more specific version can be summarized in three (bolded) sentences. And even if you read it all, it's still a little shorter.
3. Tone better conveys community expectations, not legal BS.
4. It explicitly highlights the need to be respectful of answerers, too.
5. Principles when possible, examples where needed. We included specific examples only where we've seen confusion in the past.

We think this version is a much better representation of what we all wanted to convey, but if you have new notes or suggestions, feel free to post them below. We'll take that feedback, make a couple of tweaks, and then post the new version on the Help Center.

Oh, one more thing:

Thank you.

What we expect as a community is important, and you made this a lot better than we could on our own.

Answer 1

That's a lot better!

Remarks on the content

Don't expect new users to know the rules

“the rules” → “all the rules”. Saying that new users don't have to know any rule won't go well.

We're proud to be one of the few large, user-driven spaces online where name-calling, harassment, and other online nastiness are almost non-existent.

I don't think that boasting here sets the right tone.

Copy editing

1. You're using hyphens as a clause-separating punctuation. These should be em dashes.

2. If you see them, flag them:

   Linkify “flag them” like (or instead of?) “flag it” below.

3. they're apple to

   ”apple“ → “applied” (I think)

4. posts. ("lazy", "ignorant", "whiny", etc.)

   The full stop goes at the end of the sentence, after the closing parenthesis.

5. If the other party keeps it up, flag it it.

   “it it” → “it”

6. If you think something needs SE staff attention,

   “SE” → “Stack Exchange”

7. use the "Contact Us" link found at the bottom of every page.

   Linkify “Contact Us” in the text?

Answer 2

Harassment and bullying

Harassment and bullying. If you find yourself in a hostile interaction, disengage. If the other party keeps it up, flag it. If you think something needs staff attention, use the "Contact Us" link found at the bottom of every page.

I think that this paragraph is a bit ... off.

• It should be named "Reaction to Harassment and bullying" or "Dealing with Harassment and bullying", because that's what it is about.
• "If the other party keeps it up, flag it": This sounds as if I shouldn't flag it when people are harassed/bullied, but only if it continues for some undefined amount of time. I would assume that even one inappropriate post/comment should already be flagged.
• If I am being harassed/bullied, it is my responsibility to disengage? Maybe something like "do not escalate" might be better.

I would probably rephrase that whole paragraph to:

Dealing with Harassment and bullying. If you see harassment or bullying, flag it. Try not to escalate the situation further. If you think something needs staff attention, use the "Contact Us" link found at the bottom of every page.

Answer 3

Quick copy fixes: (I'd edit the post directly, but I want to make sure the changes end up in the final copy that goes up on the site.)

Your tone should match way you'd talk ...

Missing a "the" before "way".

That includes terms that feel personal even when they're apple to posts.

"apple" is probably supposed to be "applied".

If the other party keeps it up, flag it it.

Double "it" should be fixed.

Also, the abbreviation "SE" is used once, without the full term "Stack Exchange" being used. Yes, a lot of us here on MSE understand it, but it probably ought to be expanded out for the sake of new users.

Answer 4

• Bigotry of any kind. Language likely to offend or alienate individuals or groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. won't be tolerated. At all. (That list is deliberately incomplete — when in doubt, just don't.)

Why is it necessary to highlight protected classes of people? And that last bit throwing in everybody else is ... I'd say insulting, but that's a bit too passive-aggressive for me. It would be unnecessary if you didn't trot out the standard people-of-this-category trope.

How about we be inclusive and simply state that you cannot be bigoted against ANYBODY for ANY REASON?

• Bigotry of any kind. Language likely to offend or alienate individuals, whether by accident or by intent, will not be tolerated. At all.

There. Now everybody is included, and nobody is an afterthought. Simple and direct.

Answer 5

Language likely to offend or alienate individuals or groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. won't be tolerated.

I don't like the bigotry blanket clause, as it will enable bigotry instead of the opposite.

A religious group is likely to find offensive some talk about abortion. Should we disallow any talk about it? Blasphemy laws are not OK, I came from a country with one. Do we want to enable that kind of bigotry?

Creationists are likely find offensive any talk about paleontology which does not support or include their wrong views.

Atheists find offensive any talk about the origin of the universe which is in contract with the scientific view. I, as an atheist, certainly find any such talk offensive, but I hold my breath constantly trying to respect everyone's right to be wrong. Should I be allowed to go around and delete such content as offensive?

No, this rule is badly worded. Any such rule should be around the mens rea -- about the intentions -- and categorically not solely about the effect.

Language intended to offend or alienate individuals or groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. won't be tolerated.

This is the only possible way this could work.

Answer 6

Although I'm honestly not sure if this is am improvement on the older, shorter "code of conduct," if we're going to go the verbose route and expand it, I think there's a glaring omission which is danced around and alluded to, but not actually addressed: New Users.

On the bigger and more mature/older communities, the semi-recent changes to increase visibility in Google has brought in a large volume of new users, and a highly correlated influx of absolute crap masquerading as posts from new users. And, to be fair, we can't blame it all on Google, as a decline in quality (whether real or perceived) and an increase in snippiness have been recurring themes on the meta sites of Server Fault, Stack Overflow and Super User for years.

Experts, the people who give good answers, are the core of any Q&A site. Anyone can ask a good question, but not anyone can give it a good answer - it even says so on the Stack Overflow blog. Without people to give good answers, the community will die, or become another Yahoo! Answers clone. And, as amusing as it is to read many of those train wrecks, that's not what Stack Exchange is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about high quality questions and answers, which is not a possibility if the experts aren't retained to answer questions.

Frankly, this whole revision to the code of conduct comes off as an admonishment of the existing community (at least to me), and barely recognizes the frustrations that many of us feel that generally cause the community to be less than pink-and-fluffy. That's not right, and it's not beneficial to Stack Exchange as a whole either. When volunteers feel under-appreciated/ignored/disrespected, they stop volunteering. For a network that relies on volunteers to create its content, that's a big deal.

In order to set expectations (or at least have something to point to) and to throw the long-time contributors a bone, there really should be a section in there for new users. At Stack Exchange, there are expectations of new users and questions, and that really ought to be in the code of conduct. I believe that not laying out the fact that there are expectations on new users and posts contributes to the whining and moaning and general butt-hurt expressed by some new members when their garbage gets downvoted and closed.

Off the top of my head, I would suggest something like:

Respect the community. Stack Exchange cultivates communities of experts to provide high-quality answers to your questions. Please be respectful and considerate of their time and expertise, which they donate for free. You can do this by using the site search feature to look for an existing answer, checking the help center for information about community standards and expectations, and looking around a little to make sure you're in the right place before making a contribution.

Answer 7

Don't expect new users to know the rules - they don't.

I see a problem here. If new users don't bother to learn the basic rules, why are other users expected to treat them nicely? "Be patient" directly translates to "incentivise bad behavior, it won't be judged."

Answer 8

Less is more. The longer you make this list, the more it leaves out. All this can be reduced to:

• 'thou shalt not make personal remarks', which covers 90% of it, and
• 'thou shalt be civil and professional'.

I must say, contrary to several comments here, that both the worst and the most common offenses against both that I've seen, over several years, have come not from seasoned veterans, which is whom these guidelines seem to be addressed to, but from newbies.

Answer 9

My English is not well, but I have problem understanding the structure of this paragraph:

Be welcoming, patient, and assume good intentions. Don't expect new users to know all the rules — they don't. And be patient while they learn. If you're here for help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you. Everyone here is volunteering, and no one responds well to demands for help.

The headline seems address one group, those who are supposed to help others, but in the text two groups are addressed, both people who want to help others and the people who seek help.

It could be:

Be welcoming, patient, and assume good intentions. Don't expect new users to know all the rules — they don't. And be patient while they learn.

Make it easy for others to help you. Don't demand. If you're here for help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you. Everyone here is volunteering, and no one responds well to demands for help.

Answer 10

Two sentences in the updated version add a weird, unnecesary attitude to the reading.

[...] At all.

and

[...] Also, this is so not a dating site.

Both sentences have a belittling tone (as if the reader of the policy has been prejudged) which arguably self-contradicts one or two other bullets in the policy; and each could be removed without removing substance from the policy.

Answer 11

Overall I like it. I missed the initial consultation, but comparing the two, I much prefer this version.

A few comments that I haven’t seen elsewhere (based on revision 7 of OP):

If you're here for help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you.

The obvious follow-up question is “how?”. At the risk of putting too many links in this policy, I wonder if it might be worth linking to a site’s How do I ask a good question? page.

Don't be a jerk. These are just a few examples. If you see them, flag them:

Why is the “flag it” text in the fourth bullet point linked, but not here? Seems inconsistent.

If the other party keeps it up, flag it. If you think something needs staff attention, use the "Contact Us" link found at the bottom of every page.

I don’t know how to phrase it without it becoming too wordy, but I think it might be worth adding something here to clarify the difference between moderators and staff. For new users (and maybe some not-so-new users), I don’t think it’s clear where the line is drawn. I think removing “SE” was actually a small regression.

We're proud to be one of the few large, user-driven spaces online where name-calling, harassment, and other online nastiness are almost non-existent.

I’ve read this sentence four or five times, and it rubs me the wrong way.

I think the wording confuses what we’re proud of. The use of “one of the few” is misleading. We’re proud of the fact that we’re a respectful space on the Internet, not that it puts us in a small group.  I don’t think we’d mind if that group suddenly got bigger, but that’s what it suggests.

I’d reword it to remove “one of the few”:

We're proud to be a large, online, user-driven space where name-calling, harassment, and other online nastiness are almost non-existent.

Answer 12

Minor nitpick, but the 'so' in 'this is so not a dating site' is probably a bit too colloquial for non-English speakers, and will trip up attempts at Google-translating too.

(And as others have said, I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth including anything about flirting)

I also think that an acknowledgement/reminder of the language/culture/humour barrier is valuable. (Shameless plug: see my attempt, which I still prefer - it's 40% shorter...)

Answer 13

I may not reflect everyone's opinion on this, but being a user since when some questions like "strangest language features" were allowed, and seeing them be all relegated to the past, it feels like the phrases "bring a sense of humor" and "have fun" are giving new users false hopes :)

Answer 14

Is "don't be a jerk" going to help at all?

Jerk is very loaded. I think on this side of the water being called a Jerk may mean more than on your side (perhaps it's just me).

Putting that completely aside.

What use is it?

Anybody who is doing things which come under the points subordinate to Jerk will just read to Jerk and say to themselves "well, that's not me, I can skip that bit" (who, after all, sees themselves as a Jerk - or even if they do, they'll just chuckle and think "Yep, that's me. And that one. Oh, didn't think of that, must try it out..."?).

Anybody who comes to that list can say about someone "look, you're being a Jerk, it says so here". Not a defusing measure.

Expanding from the original brief paragraph has introduced a problem. The brief paragraph has one target audience, everybody. The detailed version has two target audiences, generally, those who ask questions, and those who reply. It becomes awkward by not explicitly dealing with the separation, yet if it were to deal with it explicitly you end up with "us" and "them". One set of rules for us, and one for them.

Although the little corner of SO that I inhabit is quiet, both in terms of questions and in attitude towards those questions, I would guess and expect to be correct that most of the "abuse" on SO is against those asking questions, and dealt out by a minority of more experienced people.

OK, pointing out bluntly that someone is lazy for not even referring to a manual for syntax or looking up an error message is rude, but I can phrase the same content with words themselves that cannot be argued to be inflammatory. The further problem is that I'm not intending a sub-text of "lazy", I'm trying to assist by pointing out how they can help themselves.

I think it is also pushing water up hill to make something which becomes more specific but also applies to all sites. On SO, do we really have much "homophobia", for instance?

I'm getting to much prefer something more along the lines of the single paragraph for an all-encompassing SE Conduct Guidance, and for the individual sites, with their individual Communities, to come up with Conduct Guidance of their own. The Community on each site will be the primary police force, judge, jury and executioner, so they should make the law.

I have an interest to declare. I believe I've already been reported under number two. Andrew Barber has my full permission to confirm. How my attempt at assistance, which was a long detailed comment, followed up, after becoming aware that the OP had his eye on number two, by further detailed explanation, in the now-deleted comments, was interpreted as not being welcoming, patient, and assum[ing] good intentions I am at a loss to know.

I think the introduction of something like this is going to cause an unexpected deal of frustration and confusion.

Answer 15

May be a minor point...

If you're here for help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you.

I would suggest one more word:

If you're here looking for help, ...

Otherwise it's not clear right away whether help seekers or help providers are addressed.

In general, it's a variation of Jerry Maguire's "help us to help you", which I've used several times when prodding new users to add more beef to their questions.

Answer 16

I really like it. There's only one part I don't like:

Don't be a jerk. These are just a few examples.

Personally, the aggressive attitude isn't likely to help. I see two main "users" of this page:

• People looking from confirmation that they can get help, or people looking to get help.

• People who are pointed at the page because they were involved in (or came across) some kind of incident.

In the first case, the language is needlessly hostile. In the second case, it's accusatory and likely to incite defensiveness.

Putting a positive spin on it would fix that. I'd steal the title for this section:

Community Guidelines

<!-- The other stuff -->

3. Be nice. These are just a few examples of unacceptable behaviour. If you see them, flag them:

<!-- and so on. -->

A little extra advantage is that "Community Guidelines" just sounds more official. "Be nice" is good, but I don't think it should be the title.

Minor points, though. I like it.

Answer 17

A couple of grammatical issues.

to ask questions, or to generously share what you know

No comma needed after "questions".

we’re all here to learn, together.

No comma needed after "learn". If you are trying to emphasize "together" maybe bold font or a rephrasing would be in order.

bring your sense of humor. Just in case.

That period (full stop) after "humor" should be something else. "Just in case." is not a sentence.

And a "me-too" on a point raised by others.

Don't expect new users to know the rules — they don't.

(except for those that do because they read all the help pages.) How about something like:

New users may not know all the rules. Don't criticize or ridicule them for that, but do gently and politely help them learn.

Answer 18

I really think the last line needs to be changed from:

In summary, have fun, and be good to each other.

To:

In summary, be excellent to each other. Party on dudes!

Answer 19

If you're here for help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you.

I wonder what this means?

How exactly is a newcomer to go about making it easy for others to help? Is there anything in here that is not already covered by the rest?

Here is what I think it should say: ""If you're here for help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you: make sure your question is as complete, concise, clear, and polite as you can make it." ( With credit to Codeswitcher for suggesting the wording, though his exact suggestion is waaaay too longwinded. )

Answer 20

I really don't like how passive agressive this is.

"this is not a dating site"

Oh, really? I was almost sure it was.

"don't be a jerk"

But I love being a jerk!

"will not be tolerated. at all."

Not even a little bit...?

---

Edit: I would re-word them as:

"this site is not meant for social or personal relationships"

(you don't need to be specific about what kind of personal relationships people can't form here, because in reality all of them are discouraged not only by rules but by how the site works.)

"avoid personal offenses"

(even non-self-admitted jerks, i.e., everyone, can sometimes admit to having personally offended someone. "jerk" is an all-encompassing, childish, finger-pointing personal insult. Not really helpful.)

"has no place here"

("will not be tolerated", especially with "at all", seems to imply that the user will do these things if not reminded not to. "has no place here" can even serve to redirect some people back to /b/ and tumblr.)

Answer 21

While I like what you're doing with this, I confess that "Be Nice" rubs me the wrong way -- let us say, I come from a culture where "nice" has strongly negative associations.

I would like to counter-propose Be Kind, as avoiding that problem and being a much stronger statement of what it is you are asking of your users.

Or alternatively, my favorite, Be Excellent to Each Other.

Answer 22

If you think something needs staff attention, use the "Contact Us" link found at the bottom of every page.

Why is staff italicized? It seems to imply some manner of saucy tone, and I wonder if maybe it could just be font of a normal stress.

Answer 23

Mine is only a minor point that I made in a comment some time ago. It is probably a point more appropriately made in the comments, but I feel it was buried there, as I made it right before a rather drawn-out, arguably off-topic, conversation started up.

Here is my comment as it appeared above:

Contractions add to the laid back tone and are generally seen as informal and unprofessional. In my opinion, they are perfectly fine for this situation. That said, spelling some of them out can provide subtle emphases. For example, "Don't expect new users to know all," could be written as "Do not expect new users to know all," the spelled out contraction is much more forceful. Generally speaking, I would consider leaving contractions in the headers alone, while spelling out those in the finer points. It's a minor point but I wanted to mention it, sorry if someone else already did.

And these are the changes I would recommend based on it:

In this first sentence I would recommend expanding the contractions but I do not think it is necessary.

Whether you have come to ask questions, or to generously share what you know, remember that we are all here to learn, together.

'you'd' probably can stay but 'don't' in this section has to go.

Rudeness and belittling language are not okay. Your tone should match the way you would talk in person with someone you respect and whom you want to respect you. If you do not have time to say something politely, just leave it for someone who does.

Changing the first don't into 'do not' carries much more force. Leaving the second as 'don't' makes it a much lighter tone for the aside. Saying 'you are' as opposed to 'you're' makes the statement that much more forceful (and I think in this case clearer).

Do not expect new users to know all the rules — they don't. And be patient while they learn. If you are here for help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you.

I have mixed feelings about this case. As it is a summary of the following section I think it keeps a significantly friendlier tone to leave it as 'Don't'. That said, I have serious misgivings about starting a sentence with a contraction.

Don't be a jerk. These are just a few examples. If you see them, flag them:

This one just feels more appropriate as 'they are'.

That includes terms that feel personal even when they are applied to posts (for example, "lazy", "ignorant", or "whiny").

I cannot stress this one enough. 'won't' presents almost a joking tone, but 'will not' suggests weight of force if the rule is broken (much more so than the 'At all').

Language likely to offend or alienate individuals or groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. will not be tolerated. At all.

Another 'don't' in aside, I would probably leave this one alone as it lightens the tone.

(That list is deliberately incomplete — when in doubt, just don't.)

I don't believe for a second that 'We're proud', but I might believe that 'We are proud' (optionally you could italicize the we).

We are proud to be one of the few large, user-driven spaces online where name-calling, harassment, and other online nastiness are almost non-existent.

'It is' gives force to how important this is, in a way that 'it's' simply cannot do. (You might consider italicizing 'all of us' here as well)

It is up to all of us to keep it that way.

Granted, the changes I proposed don't really change the content, and the subtle changes to tone may be lost on many english and non-english speakers alike, but I feel the use of contractions only served to lighten the tone (something which obscured the meaning in many areas).

Anyway, sorry for the delayed response.

Answer 24

Very nicely done.

I think Be Nice. covers the bases well. Let's face it:

Rudeness and belittling language are not nice. Nor is name-calling, bigotry, harassment or bullying. None of these could be considered nice in my humble opinion. Vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder and can flip flop regionally, but I'm sure were all grown up enough to attempt to avoid that. Inappropriate attention could be misconstrued.

I think it's hard to run afoul of any of these finer points if you are actually attempting to follow the first one.

Answer 25

I think the subtitle of Bigotry of any kind should be expanded to Bigotry, stereotyping, or discrimination of any kind.

Thinking back to my junior high health classes, the two terms we learned were stereotyping and discrimination. Bigotry (or the more specific terms for it like misogyny) never came up in those classes. It's not hard for me to imagine that a young new user might only know one of those terms, and that bigotry is not one of them.

Additionally, some might have a narrow definition of bigotry, say limited to misogyny and homophobia, even though what is meant is clarified. By being very clear from the outset we limit the possibility that the rule is misinterpreted.

Answer 26

I'm not sure if it's just programmers; but in general all forums I've been on, there's a group of the in-crowd, who believe they own the forum. Instead of being nice and helping folks, many of them become super-critical bad mentors. All because "you didn't do it right" or other petty things. They are not teachers rather they are accusers of lack of knowledge which is why we're here in the first place.

Being nice means that we should assume that any post we participate in, should be from the perspective of a teacher or a learner. Not a critic, not a super-programmer, just a mentor, or a learner. That's it, no more no less.

The only time I get cross with others is when they roll out the six guns, and it that case they deserve to hear my inner thoughts.

Answer 27

I happened to be looking at the Stack Exchange Terms of Service, and saw the reference to the Ubuntu Code of Conduct which is also supposed to be obeyed when working in the Ask Ubuntu site.

The Ubuntu Code of Conduct has a lot in common with what has been produced here.

Answer 28

Mention downvoting

This is an excellent revision. I was reminded, however, that while downvoting contributes to the quality of Stack Exchange, it may be perceived as nastiness, causing confusion about if and when to downvote.

Here's a very rough attempt to address that, but I'm not sure where it would fit in or if it is neccessary in context.

If you feel a question or answer could be improved, and are willing to give feedback, downvote it and leave a nice suggestion. Remember to upvote if the entry improves! But if you feel a question, answer or comment is not nice, do not downvote it - instead flag it for removal.

Answer 29

Don't expect new users to know the rules - they don't.

This would be arguable, I think. There is certainly someone who will read them before posting. So stating that new users don't know the rules may hurt the new users who have already read them.

If you see them, flag them

Beep. Maybe remove the last "them"?

Language likely to offend or alienate individuals or groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. won't be tolerated.

I think isn't (instead of won't) would be better there, because you don't accept this language already, but with won't it looks like you won't accept it in the future and now accept it.

In summary, have fun, and be good to each other.

Of course, have fun, but... don't make fun of all surrounding you. Also, "be good to" can be replaced with respect, can't it?