Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Post History

60%
+1 −0
Q&A To be constructive, or not to be constructive, that is the question.

I'm all in for using constructive in the Code of Conduct. In a comment to a previous answer, you wrote: Although I still believe that using the word "constructive" in the code of conduct is not co...

posted 4y ago by Zerotime‭

Answer
#1: Initial revision by user avatar Zerotime‭ · 2020-09-26T17:01:14Z (about 4 years ago)
I'm all in for using constructive in the Code of Conduct.

In a comment to a previous answer, you wrote:

> Although I still believe that using the word "constructive" in the code of conduct is not constructive (because it is highly subjective and in practice no one can question any of its interpretations),  I prefer to trust your answer because it has good intentions.

For one, the word is indeed subjective, however, not highly subjective. I'm pretty sure that most people (> 90 %) visiting this site have a somewhat corresponding picture of what constructive behaviour is. It's not about the fine details of this picture but rather its boundaries.

Look at it this way: Most people would agree that arguments ad hominem and name-calling aren't polite forms of communication. Most people would agree that twisting one's words isn't a proper way of communication. Most people would agree that being constructive means to show problems but also to show possible solutions. Most people would agree that complaining about problems without providing alternative solutions isn't constructive.

So the boundaries are pretty much the same for most of the people visiting the site. Details can be discussed and solved, no big problem (for example calling someone with ridiculous names might be appropriate in certain cultures in certain situations).

Of course, it's also a question of the to be expected moderation workload[^1]: In this case, it would be using subjective and ambiguous words to lay out the rules or trying to find rules for nearly every possible situation - what do you think will cause a higher workload? Very likely, the second option as setting out rules invites people to seek ways to legally break or avoid them so that you have to set out new rules and so on. Nevertheless, using the first might lead to situations in which subjective words are laid out as one sees fit, for example: "I don't like this user, so everything coming from him isn't constructive." [But for that, we will hopefully have a panel.](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/277346)

[^1]: Right now, the network is small and most of the people are committed to it, there are few trolls and little abuse. So no need to make it harder than it needs to be. If the network grows, certain situations are very likely to happen several times so that devising rules for repeatedly happening situations is, indeed, appropriate. However, in my opinion, dropping "always be constructive" isn't really necessary as the percentage of the people having a somewhat alike idea of it is always bigger than the percentage of the people who don't.