86

In The Code of Conduct is a “no moderation” pass? Not on our watch! What can we do?, E_net4 rightly notes that using the Code of Conduct to indiscriminately challenge moderation actions is disauthorised by the very same Code of Conduct. The "Our Expectations" section asks of posters that they "be open when receiving [feedback]". Here is the relevant passage in full:

Be clear and constructive when giving feedback, and be open when receiving it.

Edits, comments, and suggestions are healthy parts of our community.

Upon rereading that, I noticed "edits, comments, and suggestions" are explicitly mentioned as feedback channels, but votes aren't. I don't know if there was a specific motivation for doing so -- perhaps the choice was to only mention forms of feedback which involve free-form text -- or if it was a mere oversight. In any case, votes are a healthy part of our curation and moderation mechanisms just like, say, edits are. Changing the text in that passage to "Edits, comments, suggestions and votes [...]" might be of some use in clearing misunderstandings about the purpose of the Code of Conduct.

| |
  • 4
    If they bring votes into the CoC, that might make people think they should "be welcoming" in how they use their votes, and not downvote terrible questions. – Bernhard Barker Oct 1 '18 at 20:40
  • 11
    @Dukeling I feel it is the other way around: explicitly saying that votes are healthy parts of our community might make it a little clearer that using votes in accordance with site policy is okay. (In any case, note that, as things stand, it is already possible to misguidedly attempt to argue in the way you are worried about with respect to edits and comments -- for instance, by claiming edits removing salutations or comments pointing out post flaws are unwelcoming.) – duplode Oct 1 '18 at 20:47
  • 28
    Associating voting with the CoC is a very slippery slope. Start something like this and you'll see your right to downvote getting removed sooner or later. The company surely would like to, but know they can't, don't make it easy for them. – Hans Passant Oct 1 '18 at 21:13
  • It's a privilege, not a right. SO (the company) giveth and taketh away. – user6655984 Oct 1 '18 at 22:28
  • 1
    @duplode: Here's the issue: voting is not "feedback," not in the same way as "edits, comments, and suggestions". These are all obvious, actionable things. Things that involve words and direct, clear, and specific communication. Votes are essentially "Someone agrees/disagrees". They don't say why. You can't do anything based on them. So voting is distinct from these things; lumping it in with actionable feedback isn't helpful. – Nicol Bolas Oct 2 '18 at 4:39
  • 2
    @NicolBolas That is an interesting take, which would make a good answer here. (A prominent post which makes a similar point is the feedback-on-downvotes FAQ.) If we zero in on "votes are quality control tools which cater to the community", acceptance of voting would fall into the scope of Expectation #1 ("If you’re here to get help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you: Follow our guidelines and remember that our community is made possible by volunteers."), rather than #3 (the one this question is about). – duplode Oct 2 '18 at 8:06
  • 3
    @Dukeling I see people upvoting crap in the c# tag just because the OPs are noobs, so I don't really think it would make a difference – Camilo Terevinto Oct 2 '18 at 13:38
  • 6
    @CamiloTerevinto Well, we don't want more people doing that. – Bernhard Barker Oct 2 '18 at 15:21
  • Perhaps add a CoC item about "votes are on posts, not users", reminding those with the privilege not to use their votes to express displeasure at users and reminding those on the receiving end that votes aren't a personal slight. – Haem Oct 3 '18 at 7:03
  • 2
    @Haem While it would be a little unusual to have a clause specifically about votes in a CoC (cf. Makoto's answer), I like the symmetry of your suggestion, as it matches that of the existing "Our Expectations" section. I wonder if some variation of Wikipedia's "Assume good faith" principle could make for a CoC-like way of getting the idea across. – duplode Oct 3 '18 at 13:04
8

To take an extreme Devil's Advocate point of view:

You don't require a community to be able to autonomously cast votes on content.

While voting remains a contentious part of participation, edits and comments are the most accessible since they unmask the participant. People get flamed for making edits or commentating all the time. People want to flame voters but unless the voters themselves expose themselves, that often doesn't happen.

It doesn't make sense to add this to the CoC since it's a misnomer. Voting is healthy and a lot of people don't like getting downvoted. But the CoC isn't a tool to effectively communicate the role of moderation tools like voting.

| |
  • (1) You have a good point with respect to unmasking the participant, though it is worth noting that e.g. close votes can also unmask. (2) "But the CoC isn't a tool to effectively communicate the role of moderation tools like voting" -- Indeed, but what about communicating the expected attitudes towards those tools and their users? That feels like it should be within the scope of the CoC, and it does seem to me that the "Our Expectations" section attempts to address that. – duplode Oct 1 '18 at 21:41
  • @duplode: Re: unmasking - yes, you can be unmasked on casting a close vote, but it isn't quite the same as responding to a comment or making an edit. One seldom revisits a question that's been closed, and I don't believe you're @-able on a close vote. You're definitely not for a downvote, and for comments and edits, you definitely are. Second, I feel that the privileges page for each individual privilege/power does a decent job of communicating the expected attitude towards the tool's use and its users. – Makoto Oct 1 '18 at 21:50
  • 31
    The code of conduct is meant to describe what's acceptable conduct, and what's not acceptable. Many times new users think anonymous downvotes are not acceptable, and they even refer to the CoC for that. Imo the CoC should be clear on the fact that they are normal here. – Erik A Oct 2 '18 at 6:40
  • 10
    @ErikvonAsmuth I don’t think that it matters whether the CoC is clear about it or not. People will continue using CoC as a buzzword in their complaints without ever reading it. – Holger Oct 2 '18 at 12:03
  • 8
    @Holger And if it's made obvious in the CoC that they're wrong, then you can quote the actual CoC. Plus, tell me: Is it better to have absolutely no solution, so people keep getting confused and accidentally misusing it, in addition to the people who misuse it intentionally, or is it better to have some solution that partially cuts down on it? I think the latter is better. I'm curious why you disagree. – Fund Monica's Lawsuit Oct 2 '18 at 23:21
  • 2
    @NicHartley responding to such a comment with a cite of the CoC means adding another off-topic comment to an off-topic comment. That will lead to a discussion which was unwanted even under the old rules. I’m not saying that the CoC shouldn’t be clear about it. I’m just saying, it won’t help. The problem is not whether a particular point has made clear in the CoC, the actual problem is the main idea that keeps sticking into their heads, that new users were always right and telling them, they’re not, was misbehavior. – Holger Oct 4 '18 at 6:56
  • @Holger We'd still have the comments arguing about the CoC, but instead of being solved in one reply -- "No, the CoC specifically states 'X'" -- it'd be a long-winded discussion of "Well it doesn't say it but because X then Y and that implies Z...". And yes, it will help, at least more than doing nothing. That's the baseline you need to measure against, unless you have a solution to propose which is more effective. – Fund Monica's Lawsuit Oct 4 '18 at 7:34
  • 3
    @NicHartley the policy of the site owners is that you should not argue at all, neither with a single cite nor with a long winded discussion. I didn’t invent the new CoC. I didn’t say that it is good as-is. I’m only telling you that the problem is much deeper than that and it’s not worth discussing about that little flaw in front of the giant flaw. The solution could be simple. Allow flagging a comment as “is trying to abuse CoC”, so it can get deleted like other abusive comment and handled in a uniform way, e.g. letting those, who invented that new CoC, explain it to that user. – Holger Oct 4 '18 at 7:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/374799/mention-votes-as-healthy-parts-of-our-community-in-the-code-of-conduct
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-29
144127
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:DKNC2FKAS4Y2ONL3IH5BT7EIXFNX5AEN
<urn:uuid:9257bfd3-77c7-44a9-a468-a07b92706535>
2020-07-08T15:34:35Z
151.101.129.69
text/html
sha1:WKYR7WTWL34IY5A3VF3KS4L6LYGVCFLN
<urn:uuid:c8aec72b-2e84-4f8b-855f-b887157c288a>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/374799/mention-votes-as-healthy-parts-of-our-community-in-the-code-of-conduct
response
<urn:uuid:5db0667d-46fe-419f-8a08-1196a846b0c5>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-29
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-218.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/