2024-04-13 15:02:33
I've worked on community groups for a long long time, and the only good thing I can say about most codes of conduct is that their existence proves the group fought past the army of dudes who think they get in the way of important things like letting them dominate the group.
But seriously, most codes of conduct are worth about one bit of information: "has cared at all (y/n)”
There's a single code of conduct document that was extremely influential by being designed to be copy-and-pastable: the document was given a specific name, work was done to propagate the idea that all you had to do was adopt it as-is. Drop in and ready to go!
The only problem there is that doesn't work. A long, legalistic set of rules about what's Not Allowed with no actual policy for enforcement invites a bunch of problems: a long list can be treated as exhaustive, so people will do things not on the list then cry foul when you tell them to stop. A lack of enforcement policy invites a binary approach: is a person good (did nothing on the list) or bad (did something on the list)? If they're bad, kick them out, if they're good, keep them.
This is bad.
The actual rules that will be enforced will be much more subtle, will favor people in positions of power, and will not yield results consistent with the stated values of various factions of the group. Arguments will ensue about whether or not something "really counts" as an item on the list, because often the actual decision being made but not explicitly stated is “do we kick out some important person to the group for some broken way they relate to others in the group?”
The other way they get used is "here's a person doing something some part of the group doesn't like, which rule can we use to kick them out?”
These are both broken approaches that don't actually reflect the relations of the group, and they lead to punitive and destructive methods of enforcement, rather than healing and reparative methods. This leads to conflict within the group being turned into a code of conduct violation while at the same time allowing outsiders to weaponize the code of conduct by provoking those conflicts.