The new Code of Conduct: Meta is useless?

Question

I have now seen the new Code of Conduct and one thing is notably absent, especially because I asked twice to include it in the new Code of Conduct.

Each Stack Exchange site has a meta where people can ask questions about the site itself. It was also used to lodge complaints if someone felt that (s)he was treated unfairly by a user or moderator(!) and it helped to disengage from conflicts.

This possibility of using meta to conflict resolution is not mentioned anymore; the new CoC only mentions flagging, moderators and direct contact.

This leads to the question:

What is the future of Meta? Is Meta as a conflict resolution mechanism effectively defunct now?

Could someone who feels upset about a certain course of action (user/user, user/moderator, moderator/moderator, etc.) use Meta as channel? And with use I do not mean "Well, we allow you to complain, but it has no influence on the decision at all." Is use of Meta for conflict resolution dissuaded now?

Meta was also interesting to follow, because it gave information about conflicts. While some users did vanish without any given reason, many users provided feedback why they were (thinking about) leaving the site. If the new Code of Conduct is implemented as it is, it is unclear what exactly happened.

If an account vanishes, did the person delete their account without goodbye, did the person die, or was the person banned? Is this intended to minimize drama and is in fact the usage of meta to write termination reasons now frowned upon?

Answer 1

It was also used to lodge complaints if someone felt that (s)he was treated unfairly by a user or moderator(!) and it helped to disengage conflicts.

That's kind of vague, but in spirit, Meta is still fully capable of handling that situation. You simply avoid naming the specific user, and focus on the actual issue instead.

To be fair, we've never allowed calling out specific users on meta and even had to write up a formal policy on it. Meta was never designed to be a place to find out what happened to a specific user, complain about someone's behavior, or otherwise keep a record of a certain user's history. That is better left to flags or the contact form.

The Code of Conduct itself doesn't really have any effect on how Meta will function moving forward. Meta has always had a fairly specific purpose of discussing important issues of the site, and that hasn't changed. You seem to have been under the impression that Meta was a place for a type of question that shouldn't ever exist.

Answer 2

"Conflict resolution" and "lodging complaints" doesn't have be mutually exclusive with addressing issues with civility and mutual respect. We get it; anyone who's ever tried to engage with others online has probably been tempted to lash out at someone or something they disagree with.

Folks addressing disagreements in good faith can do so constructively and respectfully, much like you typically expected to deal with a colleague sitting across from you in an academic or professional setting.

The Code of Conduct says, essentially, that we require all participants to act in a professional and civil tone when using these sites. If another user has wronged you in some way, or you have a good-faith disagreement about policy, it is often helpful to remind ourselves that keeping things friendly and constructive doesn't have to be at odds with being right.

Honestly, a Code of Conduct should not be at odds with folks engaging in constructive discussions, even where others might disagree. I think the new Code of Conduct actually lays that out quite nicely.

My favorite part of that write-up is how it lays out unfriendly vs friendly alternatives:

• Unfriendly: “You could Google this in 5 seconds.”
• Friendly: “This is called Invariance and Covariance. If you Google it, you’ll find tutorials that can explain it much better than we can in an answer here.”
  
  
• Unfriendly: “If you bothered to read my question, you’d know it’s not a duplicate.”
• Friendly: “I don’t think this is a duplicate. My question is about cement board, while the question you linked is about drywall.”
  
  
• Unfriendly: “Are you speaking English? If so, I can’t tell.”
• Friendly: “I’m having trouble understanding your question. I think you’re asking how to add a swap after system installation. Is that correct?”
  
  
• Unfriendly: “I came to get help, not to get my question edited.”
• Friendly: “Thanks for trying to help, but your edit isn’t what I meant. I’ve removed your edit, and have updated my question so it’s clearer.”

We've all been there — I have, at least — when you really want to use that first example… even when the latter will invariably get better results. The examples above are targeted more at comments, but the concept applies equally well to meta discourse.

Answer 3

Meta is a pretty harsh place, especially this one, but also most per-site metas. You’re expected to know the rules when you post on meta, and complaints that are perceived to be unjustified tend to get very heavily downvoted.

Meta is not the place I’d send a new user to complain, that would be quite mean. If you’re not familiar with many of the rules of the site, it’s easy to end up with a heavily downvoted meta post.

The SE community team is much nicer in general than the meta population, it’s a better way to complain than meta for new users in my opinion. Experienced users can certainly use meta to achieve the same thing, maybe even more effectively. But those already know where to find meta, for everyone else contacting the SE community team is probably the better idea.