From the new banner I saw pointing to the new Code of Conduct

I feel like this is asking moderators to be babysitters, "Now be nice, children!"

I also feel like it's great to have a community rooted in collaboration and mutual respect, but... kindness? It feels like that should be more of a "nice-to-have".

I admit I also felt a bit "pinged" by the example:

If you bothered to read my question, you’d know it’s not a duplicate. ==> I don’t think this is a duplicate. My question is about cement board, while the question you linked is about drywall.

...well, because frankly, that's happened to me on more than one occasion and there should be (IMHO) some scolding done when a person skims over a question, decides he or she knows what is being asked, and immediately votes to close based upon some keywords. Speaking of mutual respect, I find that sort of behavior quite disrespectful.

Maybe I'm unusual, but I like to think of SO as a site of professionals. Mutual respect, collaboration, mentoring, these are all things professionals do. Kindness? Doesn't seem to fit.

  • 19
    So, you don't like the rules about being nice because you don't want to be nice. Isn't that why we have rules? – Nicol Bolas Aug 7 '18 at 17:44
  • 51
    You're right. I don't want to be nice. I want to be effective, and productive. Nice is just a bonus, I don't feel it should be a goal. – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 7 '18 at 17:44
  • 27
    Are you saying that professionals shouldn't be nice? We've had "Be nice" as a basic part of policy for years now. We even had a page specifically outlining that policy. – Nicol Bolas Aug 7 '18 at 17:58
  • 6
    Note that multiple drafts of the code of conduct have been discussed in depth on MSE, the latest in this discussion. This means a discussion of the gist of the CoC is a bit late to the party. – Erik A Aug 7 '18 at 17:59
  • 22
    Or putting it more to the point, how is saying, "If you bothered to read my question, you’d know it’s not a duplicate," a useful comment? The person who closed it as a duplicate clearly believes that they did read it. So it's not going to make them change their mind. So what's the point of it besides expressing your frustration? – Nicol Bolas Aug 7 '18 at 17:59
  • 21
    "Be nice" has been with us since the very beginning of the site. This community has managed to "Be tolerant of others who may not know everything you know." and be effective, so we're not going to change that now. – Jon Ericson Aug 7 '18 at 18:00
  • 12
    "Be nice" is a good rule of thumb (policy) and I'm not challenging that; I don't want to come across like "I just want to be mean to people". I just don't think it makes sense as a "core value"... people don't come here for emotional support, they're looking for effective and practical answers/ advice. – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 7 '18 at 18:06
  • 25
    I don't think any interpretation of "be nice" that translates to "fawning flattery" is useful, @Jeremy... But, one that translates to "stay focused on communication that educates rather than tears down" is very useful for a Q&A site. You'll note that "be nice" has always been paired with "be honest" in the guidance: the goal here should always be to enlighten others, and sadly too often we all resort to language that gets in the way of that goal rather than furthering it. – Shog9 Aug 7 '18 at 18:11
  • 7
    @Shog9 specifically, I'm referring to the CoC which says the community is "rooted in kindness". I am all for a policy of being nice, I think it's generally more productive and effective... but not always, and when there's a conflict between being nice and being effective, one should opt for being effective. This seems contrary to the new CoC. – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 7 '18 at 18:14
  • 9
    Perhaps a case where someone is doing something that's actually dangerous, and you comment with, "that's a really bad idea, you could nuke your database." It's not "kind", but it's important. Maybe someone will get their feelings hurt, but it's for a good reason. (bit of a contrived example, I admit) – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 7 '18 at 18:20
  • 4
    @JeremyHolovacs: Kindness is often very subjective (which is a problem in itself). But I wouldn't call your comment unfriendly. It would be unfriendly to state "Only a person without any knowledge about that technology could suggest something like this. You could nuke your database". I think as long as you act the same way you would speak with colleagues in your company, everything should be fine. – BDL Aug 7 '18 at 18:24
  • 5
    @ryanyuyu are you making a personal attack based upon my icon? That's a violation of the Code of Conduct you know. – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 7 '18 at 18:34
  • 3
    @JeremyHolovacs if I ignored repeated moderator warnings/suspensions I'd expect to be expelled. That is totally appropriate. I'm not going to be expelled from a single comment. – ryanyuyu Aug 7 '18 at 18:42
  • 5
    @JeremyHolovacs look, I personally think kindness is a good standard to have. I'm sorry about my previous hypocritical comments. For the record, I am not arguing against the new CoC. If you search for some of the other welcoming posts, you'll find I'm in a minority of users who aren't very skeptical about either the intentions or the implementation of the new CoC. – ryanyuyu Aug 7 '18 at 19:04
  • 5
    I feel like this is asking moderators to be babysitters, "Now be nice, children!" oh I hear you. It's exhausting. – user3956566 Aug 7 '18 at 21:20

I like to think of SO as a site of professionals.

Me too. And in practice that means people who are a little bit preoccupied with their status, with saving face in front of others. When your bread & butter depends on being recognized for your skill, someone talking down to you cuts a bit more deeply than when they're knocking, say, a casual hobby.


To what end? What's your goal here: to keep the question open and convince the voter to be more careful in the future, or... Vent. Nobody here is your kid that you can scold them and they have to listen; if you're gonna go to the trouble of pointing out that someone is wrong, you probably want to do it in a way that'll actually get through to them.


Naw; babies don't need a lot of nuance or subtlety in correction. It's asking moderators - and on Stack Overflow, all of us are moderators - to be adult-sitters, which is a whole 'nother level of difficulty. It's asking us to watch out for one another, to guide and correct, to accept guidance and correction, to teach and to learn.

  • 12
    "When your bread & butter depends on being recognized for a skill" that you do not actually have is a root of quite a few problematic exchanges on SO. – user6655984 Aug 7 '18 at 19:24
  • TBH, I'd be lying if I said venting wasn't part of it, but often times I feel it can slow down other people from jumping on the "close as duplicate" bandwagon. Some people get click-happy but pause and evaluate more closely when they see someone else thought it should be obvious it's not a duplicate. – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 7 '18 at 19:42
  • 3
    To what end? So as to not lie or be passive aggressive. It's one thing not being nasty or passive aggressive or assuming you have have influence or power when you have none; it's another to pretend to be nice when you genuinely think someone's behavior isn't okay. you probably want to do it in a way that'll actually get through to them. to be clear that isn't necessarily to do with nice or nasty... it is more to do with respect, honesty and not deliberately trying to offend. I think there is a difference between venting and not pretending. – Att Righ Aug 8 '18 at 1:55
  • The code of conduct doesn't state if we are allowed to use sarcasm on the main site, I supposed it's ok as long as it's not a mean or abusive sarcasm... – Antoine Pelletier Aug 8 '18 at 13:13
  • On sarcasm, @Antoine – Shog9 Aug 8 '18 at 18:23
  • 6
    If your choices in a given interaction are scolding, lying or subtle cutting remarks, it might be time to take a step back and reflect on whether that's a conversation you even want to be involved in, @Att. Normally, it should be possible to point out errors without engaging in such tactics. As for being effective... See the start of this answer, about giving folks a chance to save face. I'll admit I'm wrong far sooner to someone who calmly points out my mistake than someone who seems to take delight in their chance to trumpet my errors. – Shog9 Aug 8 '18 at 18:27
  • @Shog9 "I'll admit I'm wrong far sooner to someone who calmly points out my mistake"... that's a good many of us, but there's also a good many that do not react in such a manner. If everyone was like that, I think we probably wouldn't be having this discussion now. – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 9 '18 at 11:14
  • @Shog9 "errors without engaging in such tactics."* But can you do this while being nice The dynamics that have most annoyed me are "X-Y projection" ("I'm going to answer a related question and I don't care what your question is"), "we're helping you, do what we say" type interactions. Is saying "No. I don't see how this helps, give me a better argument" nasty? What about responding to resultant "We are just trying to help you. Stop being arrogant and give us information" in a similar manner. Is ignoring these comments nice? What is the line between "nasty" and "conflict". – Att Righ Aug 9 '18 at 14:12
  • @Shog9 I'm all for "minimal nastiness". But this allowed from of nastiness has to extend to either saying no and directly contradicting people's arguments or ignoring people. Also "stepping back" when this impedes you from asking a question (e.g. if people want to close your question as a duplicate in error) is not quite so simple as you imagine. You can step back but this is at a cost to yourself and the world. – Att Righ Aug 9 '18 at 14:22
  • 3
    Step back when you can't do anything productive, @Att. Step up when you can. If I had a nickle for every asker who torpedoed their chances of ever getting an answer by being offensively proactive in the defense of their question... I'd probably be retired and wouldn't have to think about this anymore. – Shog9 Aug 9 '18 at 23:59
  • cuts a bit more deeply than when they're knocking, say, a casual hobby. I don't know about you, but I have left a "casual" site because they were too zealous for me and too occupied with being "right". I have been downvoted and called a liar for posting my experiences, despite explicitly saying "it worked for me, it will not work for everyone, but maybe it will for you". Sorry, but depending on which other SE sites you frequent, SO is the professional and nice site already. – nvoigt Sep 4 '18 at 15:06
  • 1
    Yeah, there are definitely plenty of folks who aren't... casual... about their hobbies, @nvoigt. But for a new user dropping onto a site, it helps a lot to recognize the sorts of pressures (or lack thereof) that brought them to that point; idle curiosity about some cartoon they watched vs. their continued employment, etc. – Shog9 Sep 4 '18 at 15:13

I think this question, or maybe the whole topic cries for some philosophical thoughts. For the sake of brevity, I just go with two quotes.

First, Rumi the famous Persian poet:

Before you speak, let your words pass through three gates:


At the second gate ask, “Is it necessary?”

At the third gate ask, “Is it kind?”

And second, the story of the two wolfs:



And the grandfather says: “The one which I feed.”

So, yes, seriously: one can discuss this whole topic back and forth on the level of professionalism and attitude, and expectations towards community members.

Or you step back and only think about yourself, about the question which wolf you want to feed. About the kind of person you want to be. Not just once, occasionally, but all the time. ( and I am very much aware that I far too often make the wrong choice around here. I swallowed hard when I saw the "conduct" link today, and I will fight hard to keep remembering that )

  • 7
    Yeah, I've always thought that 3 questions was kinda BS, too. If it's true and necessary, it shouldn't matter if it's kind... it's true and it's necessary. That's enough. – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 7 '18 at 19:23
  • 10
    One could argue that the first two gates are about the what, and the third one about the how. You can speak necessary truth and still be overly aggressive or humiliating. – GhostCat Aug 7 '18 at 20:08
  • 3
    I can't argue about its efficacy as a policy/ strategy towards life in general... I just don't feel like taking responsibility for anybody else's feelings on the matter. With the golden rule as my philosophy, if it was true and necessary, I'd want to be told even if it hurt my feelings. But I may be in the (significant) minority on that. – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 7 '18 at 20:33
  • 4
    The poet, Rumi, called for us to consider our words and decide whether to speak them; he did not call for the sovereign power to make these considerations and apply censorship. – einpoklum Aug 7 '18 at 20:35
  • As for the two wolves - I'd say that the black wolf is downtrodden, marginalized, muzzled; and the white wolf is condescending and self-righteous and overbearing. Or, in other words - the dichotomy is questionable. – einpoklum Aug 7 '18 at 20:43
  • 2
    @einpoklum But people are not considering their words, so I don't see why this site shouldn't consider, and censor, the words on their behalves. – Tim Aug 7 '18 at 21:32
  • 2
    @Jeremy Holovacs If you change "kind" into "not deliberately nasty" perhaps it's more palatable. I often find, for example, that I'm tempted to write something passive aggressive, and instead I write something direct. Direct isn't exactly kind - but at the same time it shows more respect. – Att Righ Aug 8 '18 at 2:00
  • 1
    @einpoklum Such allegories are never perfect. That can be said about anything humans do, because we aren't perfect. So anything we do or say can be looked at from different angles. So, yes, as said, you can totally focus on the aspects that you raise in that comment, but it is also a valid option to take this little tale as a guideline for your personal goals. And to play devils advocate: could it be that some black wolfs don't like the brains of their owners think about such ideas, because well, it could result in the black wolves being fed less. – GhostCat Aug 8 '18 at 7:33
  • @einpoklum And, yes, I too have a problem with these two wolf tale. But my concern is rather the implicit notion in there "the white is pure and good", the black is the exact opposite. Made me remember that youtube from Malcom X. – GhostCat Aug 8 '18 at 7:38
  • @Tim: Yours is an opinion worth debating (which I won't do in this comment thread), but it is the perspective of Tim, not the poetry of Rumi :-) – einpoklum Aug 8 '18 at 10:20
  • @GhostCat Yeah, I wonder if this Cherokee story isn't a projection. After all, the myths of Aryans and their alleged superiority or purity are to some extent part of Persian cultural heritage: That's where the original Aryans lived. – einpoklum Aug 8 '18 at 10:26
  • @JeremyHolovacs Today I learned a great lesson why kindness does matter big time. I put up another question here myself. All the feedback I got was true, probably necessary. Almost none was kind. And guess what? It took me hours to overcame the feeling of everybody just bashing on me. Reminding me of so many soft skill classes I took: it is damn important to show your appreciation to your counterpart. You see, in the end, when you decide to communicate, you have a goal. You want to achieve some sort of effect on the other side. When your output lacks kindness ... – GhostCat Aug 20 '18 at 17:55
  • ... you are most likely not going to achieve that goal. Because the other side will reject your input on the emotional layer. Thus: no matter how true and necessary your statements are ... when they are not kind enough, you could as well have said nothing. Because your words don't reach that layer in your counterpart that would be able to hear them. From that perspective, being kind isn't necessarily about the other person. You could simply see it as essential element of succesfull communication. Without it, your attempt of communication is less effective! – GhostCat Aug 20 '18 at 17:56
  • @GhostCat I'll have to disagree with you on this. Your level of receptiveness to not-kind (yet true and necessary) feedback is simply not a problem with the feedback; you seem to be suggesting that the one supplying the necessary information has assumed a responsibility of ensuring it's "well-received" and outside of politics (and romance) I know of no other field in life where that is the case. There's lots of feedback I've gotten over the years that was not kind but it was useful; it may annoy me but I've remained effective and improved as a result. – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 21 '18 at 12:18

This is one step of many.

The scenario that you mention is one that I quite literally think about late at night: "Erroneous duplicate closures are one of the biggest antagonists of engagement and one of the hardest problems we need to solve."

Well, actually, de-duplication and proper categorization and indexing at our scale is something more than a few could build nearly an entire career out of improving.

If interacting with the site makes you so angry that you feel justified in chiding someone publicly, we want you to blame us, not them, because you've hit a product pain point that we haven't fixed.

While giving someone a good 'talking to' and 'setting them straight' might seem as effective as it does cathartic, it's not the proper way to go about resolving conflict. You're angry because we didn't give you a button you could push with some sincere confidence that it would have a positive effect.

It's going to take a long time to fix these pain points.

We're eventually going to need to hire a PM just to work on portions of the product that cause people to disengage, or refrain from engaging based on what they've heard. Right now, it's in DAG's wheelhouse because we're using their developers to do it, but the 'welcome wagon' needs to become an autonomous team. We're actively recruiting, we're actively hiring, and we know what we need to invest to fix this stuff.

Our relevance could be the cost of our outbursts, and that's scary.

We're pointing the finger inward here, but to fix this, we need everyone's help. I need you to email me and scream like a pissed-off chef in a walk-in if you really need to get stuff off your chest instead of letting it burst out at someone else on the site publicly, because it's my fault that we haven't fixed the part of our product that set you off. And if some of that also happens to be your boss putting unrealistic expectations into scheduling, well, I'll take it too.

Just don't take it out on the people that really look up to the people that find success on Stack Overflow. And honestly? There's no new rules here, we're just codifying what we've been loosely and inconsistently enforcing for the past 5+ years (another big problem is groups of users making new rules without any mechanism for clear consensus, we need to re-work meta, too).

But, it's not over the top. In fact it keeps with our tradition of being just the minimum amount needed. We're going to see how it goes over time, checking in through tests and quick surveys every 6 months or so.

  • 4
    "You're angry because we didn't give you a button you could push"... in all seriousness, this sounds like the classic developer mistake of presuming all human problems can be solved with technology, and I'm deeply skeptical that this is true. Also, I'd like to challenge your assertion that it's "not the proper way to go about resolving conflict"... that also seems to require some justification, and I don't know how that assertion can be justified. What is "proper" in this context? – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 8 '18 at 13:07
  • @JeremyHolovacs well, history kind of give humans the impression that technology has fixed most important human problems. – Braiam Aug 8 '18 at 13:47
  • 2
    @Braiam I'll just have to disagree with you on that... – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 8 '18 at 15:05
  • 1
    @JeremyHolovacs With "me"? No, you would disagree with facts. – Braiam Aug 8 '18 at 18:36
  • 2
    @Braiam I would disagree with what you consider facts. IMO, "most important human problems" have not even been touched by technology, for example, egos, pride, selfishness, greed, violence, cruelty, etc. Those are "human" problems, have been our biggest problems, and technology has not significantly impacted them. You could even make a case that technology has made those problems worse. – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 8 '18 at 18:39
  • 1
    @JeremyHolovacs so, the fact that we are pushing 7 billions individuals and are capable of feeding them, that our children aren't dying before the age of 5, that we have access to potable water, that we live longer now than ever, were never important human problems? I think that the problem is that we don't read enough history. – Braiam Aug 9 '18 at 12:27
  • @Braiam you seem to have some misunderstandings about my comment. I never claimed that technology cannot solve human problems, I am saying I am deeply skeptical that it can solve all human problems. Logistical, organizational, efficiency problems, yes absolutely technology has demonstrated its power here... but the problems we are talking about in this context are related to human interaction at an emotional and psychological level, and I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that technology has ever solved or can solve those sorts of problems. – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 9 '18 at 19:00
  • @Braiam the part I disagreed with you on is "technology has fixed most important human problems"... we have a difference of opinion about what important human problems are. You are looking at hunger and child mortality, these are definitely problems, but I think the most important problems are foundational in nature, as mentioned above. – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 9 '18 at 19:04
  • Tim, if I take you up on your offer to let me email you, you're not going to suddenly block emails from my account, are you...? – Makoto Aug 10 '18 at 16:40
  • @Makoto I've never blocked anyone from email. In fact, the only time I ever blocked someone was on Twitter, and that was only for a few days until they worked some anxiety related stuff out. At least to my knowledge, anyway. Fire away, I guarantee you that I've heard much worse :P – Tim Post Aug 10 '18 at 16:48
  • So where's that semi-annual survey you were mentioning? – einpoklum Nov 18 '18 at 11:31

I want to address that specific example.

In this situation, we have two opposite points of view. One party believes there is a duplicate question, and the other believes there is a unique question.

The one who thinks it is duplicate most likely thinks they are doing a good deed by closing a duplicate question and directing the question's author towards the answer they desire.

The question's author believes they have been wronged, because the question will now not receive answers. They need it to be reopened to move forward.

Scenario one:


This is unhelpful. The close voters are required to read the question. But the question close queue is thousands of questions deep, so any given question may not have gotten much careful reading. But making the assumption that it was totally unread is an unfair personal attack, which will put the reader on the defensive and more likely to look for reasons to support their original conclusion.

Scenario two:


This is helpful. Stating the specific reason why this question is new will help the question reviewers to re-open the question more easily. Or if they continue to insist it is a duplicate, they can directly address the specific reason (e.g. cement board vs drywall).

In conclusion, being nice is not in conflict with being professional and having mutual respect.

  • 1
    Well, I'll disagree with you on this... there are plenty of times when a sharp phrase will communicate something to the community much more effectively. It shouldn't be the OP's responsibility to point out how a close-voter is clearly wrong; the close-voter should be responsible for justifying his/ her close-vote. I think it depends on who you're trying to be "helpful" to; the fellow who didn't carefully read the question, or other readers that will put a little more effort in. – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 21 '18 at 12:03
  • 3
    Jeremy you are leaving out the possibility that they read it yet misunderstood it, or other possibilities we may not know about. Also, yes, maybe shouldn't, but is. If there's a misunderstanding and the OP wants it clarified, it actually does become their responsibility to try to clear it up, assuming they want it cleared up. It does no good to wait for others to clear it up when one can oneself (and one can never be certain whether others spontaneously will). Finally, you haven't really rebutted the point. The point is one thing is helpful and another isn't, and the point stands. – Alex Hall Sep 4 '18 at 3:31

It is not merely "over the top". It's Orwellian. It's awful. It's terrible.

Now, I personally have a record of calling out overly aggressive and condescending comments by high-rep users towards lower-rep ones; and I've often decried the violent and excessive down-voting which Stack Overflow is infamous for. HOWEVER - I would never dream of initiating procedures against such commenters which result in their suspension or expulsion, just because their rhetoric is blunt, sarcastic, abrasive, or un-nice.

Stack Overflow, despite being privately-owned, is de facto a public resource, a public forum. This code of conduct, and the enforcement thereof, is a violent sterilization of this space.

  • 20
    Orwellian is to make you so afraid of the system that you never dare to speak up. The exact opposite of what you are practicing here. 1984 wasn't about people using more polite wording, it was about taking away all means of critical thinking by re-shaping society (and language). That is not at all what this code of conduct suggests. And there is no freedom of speech in a place that is, in the end, owned by a private company. – GhostCat Aug 7 '18 at 18:28
  • 8
    @GhostCat I think your definition and einpoklum's aren't too far apart; there is an enforcement section of the new CoC, which suggests punishment for behavior that is highly subjective. It's entirely possible to become afraid of a system that implements such an arbitrary standard to the point where you do not dare speak up. It's a bit exaggerated, but I don't think it counts as the "exact opposite". – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 7 '18 at 19:27
  • 9
    Know what else is "Orwellian"? Overusing terms like that to the point where they loose all meaning and impact. – Nicol Bolas Aug 7 '18 at 19:28
  • @GhostCat: Ah, but it's not the exact opposite, it is rather [quite similar](It's not just that. We don't say "Phrase X", we rather say "Phrase Y". So, the sugar rations have not dropped, it's actually gone up! And people aren't derisive, they're actually all nice, except they don't know it yet. But they'll learn. They'll all learn; the ones that aren't erased, that is. – einpoklum Aug 7 '18 at 19:49
  • 2
    To play Devil's Advocate - would you not be at least talked to by your superior, if not face disciplinary action (which would include suspension or expulsion) if you were blunt, sarcastic, abrasive or un-nice in discourse with your coworkers? – Makoto Aug 7 '18 at 21:14
  • 3
    @GhostCat And there is no freedom of speech. To be clear there are two definitions of freedom or speech. There is the restriction on the state, and there is also a principle: allowing people to express what they think is important. Now I understand why organizations might restrict the way you say things, but I think they are wise to give people a way of saying most things. Preventing someone from expressing themselves in any way is a good way to make people very very angry. – Att Righ Aug 8 '18 at 2:05
  • 1
    @Makoto I think you could probably get away with being both blunt and un-nice to your colleagues provided you didn't actively try to be nasty and were acting with the best interests of the company at heart. I mean... people mightn't like you very much, and they might say a couple of nasty things to you or try to get you to take some bait; they will also likely return the favor. But seriously - what kind of person does it make you if you fire someone for saying things that are relevant and true? I suppose if you are managing people who start to hate you; you might have a problem. – Att Righ Aug 8 '18 at 2:44
  • @Makoto I guess I can think of one more caveat. If you do something wrong after being blunt all the time you'll find out about it pretty quickly (which can be a good thing) and people will likely stop helping you with things (unless you make a pretty good case that the company needs it). – Att Righ Aug 8 '18 at 2:52
  • 3
    @Makoto There are times when it's entirely appropriate to be blunt, sarcastic, abrasive, or un-nice to coworkers. It's usually not constructive as a general policy, but sometimes that cuts through a lot of the BS and gets to the heart of the matter. I personally value the ability to "be un-nice" in my coworkers. Now if they did it all the time, it'd be a different story... – Jeremy Holovacs Aug 8 '18 at 11:37
  • @GhostCat: notional -1 for confusing "basic legal protections to ensure the most powerful part of society respects the value of freedom of speech" (the actual American First Amendment) with "literally the only thing we care about is that the feds don't arrest you for speaking your mind -- but anybody else should feel free to do whatever they want to discourage any speech they don't like" (which is just decentralized censorship) – Nathan Tuggy Aug 9 '18 at 0:39
  • 1
    @NathanTuggy I agree that censorship is a bad thing. But again: this is capitalism. When stackexchange.com goes down (as a company) and their servers go offline, our precious community gets censored for good. So when the people that own the infrastructure decide to put rules in place for people using the infrastructure, then that is their choice. And nobody here has a say in that. It is really nice that this company listens to us, and tries to come to consensus based solutions. But in the end, the sites on the SE network pay their salary (not mine, or your). – GhostCat Aug 9 '18 at 7:05
  • Yes, we contribute to their income by creating content ... but again: their servers, their rules. And as you know for sure: the "be nice" rule is in place since day one. I regard it is as "business as usual" that such rules/policies evolve over time. And when the people paying for the servers find that "we need to do something about our reputation" ... well, unless we start collecting money to buy that company and run things ourselves, unless then, we have no say in this (ultimately). The new code of conduct was discussed here, and the community provided input and feedback. – GhostCat Aug 9 '18 at 7:08
  • 2
    It's a shame I can only cast a single upvote on this one... it exactly highlights my thoughs. If someone forces me to be nice, it's not about "maintaining necessary niceness" - it's about truth - whether I can call stupid thing stupid or not. I already mostly opted out of SO when the first "forced niceness" wave struck a couple of years ago... I wanted to be helpful, but I never wanted to be forced to be nice to people who ain't nice to nobody - to people, who just greedily require help of others, while not giving anything in return. – user719662 Aug 10 '18 at 12:46
  • 1
    As far as I'm aware, before the new code of conduct people have been banned or even perm-deleted for repeatedly violating the "be nice" policy, so there is nothing new, just a rewording of the policy. Please don't act as if this is brand new. That is disingenuous and overly dramatic – Mark Rotteveel Aug 10 '18 at 18:34
  • 4
    @MarkRotteveel you've just breached the new CoC by being rude, sarcastic and by name calling. "Please don't act as if this is brand new." is rude and borderline sarcastic, "That is disingenuous and overly dramatic" is pure PoV and unnecessary criticism that shames me by implying I'm disingenuous and overly dramatic - and shaming me doesn't help me improve... see what I did there? – user719662 Aug 11 '18 at 11:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .