Expletives are generally not allowed
I didn't like it before, and I don't like it now. An expletive is a word that fills space without adding any semantic content (meaning), or that's only for stress. Examples are on earth (in "why on earth did…"), the heck (in "what the heck is…") and, yes, some other, vulgar things. Expletives are (or should ...
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 ...
I find the phrase
Be civil. Attacking or harassing individuals based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, age, race, or religion – and any and all other type of personal attack – is unacceptable.
bothersome - and it feels like it was written by a lawyer. That long list comprises "legally protected characteristics", but it fatally ...
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 ...
Are these going to be editable by users? The faq posts here get updated pretty much constantly, and historically info that's supposed to be updated by SE staff tends to not get updated very frequently; you're going to end up with constant bug reports here about out-of-date FAQ information
I really like the updated guidance, but somehow I also think: Are they really necessary to that extent? I cannot remember I have seen anyone being "harassed" by "on gender, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, age, race, or religion"... Are there any IRL examples of that?
It is not meaning that I don't think rules like that should be part of the ...
Do we really have to call out "don't cuss"—it sounds like a schoolhouse rule for a bunch of kids that don't really understand what being civil means. On the whole lowers whatever code from a positive ensemble designed to promote elevated dialogue into some checkmark set of rules where I feel I could whine "BUT I FOLLOWED EVERYTHING, Y U BAN?!"
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 ...
Assume good faith
Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good ...
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 ...
Yes please. This will encourage users (probably new on Stack Exchange) to downvote VLQ/SPAM/incorrect answers without rep-lose-phobia. We can simply add this information in You gain reputation when section somewhat like this:
A non-wiki answer you have downvoted is removed: +1
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 ...
Update: The page has now been edited to say:
We have a system in place that examines the impact of removing a user's votes. If the user has cast a large number of votes, deletion will be held up so staff may consider preserving the votes prior to the deletion. The decision is at the staff's discretion and cannot be reversed after the deletion has taken ...
The "Be civil" section isn't really about civility.
Civility is courtesy and politeness, contrasted with rude or aggressive behavior. Most of that stuff is actually covered by the "Focus on the post, not the person" section.
As written right now, the "Be civil" section is more about something else: outright hate and hostility that transcend mere incivility....
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."
Some of the view mores are unnecessary:
The "Badges" view more is exactly the same as the only item listed under "badges", same with "Privileges". The View More could just be removed.
The top three bullets here look weird and don't seem to serve a purpose, typo? There's one under "Answering" too
Also in the "asking" list IMO "disagree with ...
I'm a fan of the older version, and I will certainly miss it. This feels clunky in comparison. It's wordy, not very readable.
It's simple - It doesn't look like it was written by a lawyer. It put across something that really is a simple concept. It treats people like adults, and leaves room for the community to interpret it. It sums up things fairly ...
I'm sure you are on some level aware of this, but in the spirit of your item (3) Use comprehensible language, please also try to place yourself in the shoes of someone who speaks only rudimentary English.
Upon clicking 'Take the tour', two things jump out at me:
The etymology for the “meta-” prefix dates back to Aristotle’s
Metaphysics, which came ...
It is now far too difficult to find the information about what is on-topic on a site. I knew exactly the content I was looking for and it took me over five minutes to find it as an experienced Stack Exchange user. There is no way we can reasonably expect a new user to find what is on-topic without having to have it linked to them when they post ...
The real-life test: You shouldn't talk to anyone here in a way that you wouldn't talk to someone in person, including a boss or new colleague.
I think "including a boss" here makes this too broad. I might comment a bad question on an SE site with, "This question is ill-posed. You might like to read [some wikipedia page] to understand the terms you're using, ...
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 ...
Could I suggest that for the religion sites (Biblical Hermeneutics.SE, Buddhism.SE, Christianity.SE, Islam.SE, Judaism.SE, and the like), this language is going to cause confusion or consternation:
Be civil. Attacking or harassing individuals based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, age, race, or religion – and any and all other ...
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 ...
Parts of the Help Center that moderators can edit:
An introduction section on the front page (http://foo.stackexchange.com/help):
"What topics can I ask about here?" (http://foo.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic):
Parts of the Tour that moderators can edit:
The introduction paragraph:
The example question:
These bullet points:
A radical idea would be to change the terminology on meta. Not every question on meta is actually a question and answers are not always truly answers. So e.g. we would have inquiries and responses instead of questions and answers on meta (these are placeholder names; I don't actually have a good idea for real ones).
Meta is different, and making some ...
I wrote that post - and threw together that collage - to try to establish a shared baseline understanding for answer flagging, a set of things that hopefully we could all agree on.
Because... Of course there are a great many things that we won't all agree on. Some sites have extremely strict standards for answers; others allow questions that are almost ...
Two minor typographic issues. Normally, I'd just edit the post to fix them, but it isn't clear that will work as desired here.
Keep it professional, and avoid criticism of the author, (as opposed to the post).
If you removed the parenthetical, you would be left with a comma followed by a full stop (period). The comma is therefore unnecessary — the ...