Proposed new code of conduct for all Stack Exchange sites

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 be) allowed: you should reword this rule to disallow vulgarities, not expletives.

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 does not include "stupidity" and "laziness". And there is plenty of both on these sites, and there are plenty of people who attack others (incivilly) because of it. By omitting those "unprotected" characteristics, you make the whole rule set feel like it was drawn up by lawyers instead of a community that cares about its members. I recognize that it could be argued that they fall under

any and all other type of personal attack

but it still feels wrong. I would like to suggest alternative wording:

Be civil. In your comments and answers, address the issues raised by the question - avoid any type of name calling, harassment or verbal attacks on other community members.

It would be very good to include a sampling of "acceptable" examples of strong language - because it's not clear to me that we need to remove any kind of edge from our language in order to make the site successful. This might usefully make the subject of another Meta post; but it would definitely include

• the right way to say RTFM
• the right way to say "let me google that for you"
• the right way to say "look in your lecture notes"
• the right way to say "did you actually read that link you posted"
• the right way to say "as written nobody can answer your question"
• the right way to say "fix your grammar and spelling you lazy so-and-so"
• the right way to say "that doesn't even compile without errors / warnings"
• the right way to say "I can tell English is not your first language[...]"

etc... because all of these opportunities arise frequently, and all of them can easily be written in a way that offends (I did not attempt to write an "approved" version in the above...)

I think it's fine, but here are some of my observations.

You shouldn't talk to anyone here in a way that you wouldn't talk to someone in person, including a boss or a new colleague.

The people who don't need to hear this already understand it, and the people who do need to hear it already think they're doing it right.

"We're all in this together"

"Focus on the post, not the person."

If you want people to avoid some specific behaviours, then you need to be specific about what those behaviours are. Those of us who have been here for a while already know what you're talking about in these paragraphs, but the new people don't. "Attacking or harassing individuals based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, age, race, or religion – and any other types of personal attack – is unacceptable. " -- That's specific.

That said, we need to retain the right to say "well, this is how it is, I've made the decision, and that's it," without having to fall back onto legalistic rule structures. One of the problems with civility is that it's defined differently in different cultures.

This is offensive to you, but it's not offensive to me.

I avoid this problem during moderation by taking the position that it's worthy of moderator action if it "has become a distraction to the community."

So I think it's probably a good idea to specifically codify those things that fall within the legal realm (i.e. harassment and discrimination), but attempting to explain to folks what "be nice" means, well ... saying "be nice" really ought to be enough, as those folks who don't seem to understand what that means will either figure it out and change their behaviour, or find somewhere else to go.

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 overall Stack Overflow code of conduct. Just thinking, one could think there is a real widespread problem about harassing people on Stack Overflow for things like gender. This is not the case, at least as far as I recall what I have seen on Stack Overflow in the past two years and four months.

However, I have two real observations:

1. A non-native English-speaking person can by accident write something that native speaking people find offending. I am not a native English speaking person. It is not always clear to me, before hitting "add comment", for example, how something (like a certain word) can be (mis)understood. So you could add to the code of conduct, that people also (to some degree) should be indulgent if it is clear, that the "offender" was not trying to be evil by purpose.

2. Something I really think is missing is: "Don't be arrogant". This is the worst part I have observed actually happening - more skilled people being arrogant to newbies, to the best scaring newcomers away. Be nice to people, even if you think a question is trivial, or an answer is "stupid".

Just my two cents.

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?!"

Rather than admonishing us salty swine, I'd rather see something like (please note that I am not a wordsmith and you should not use the following)

Choose your words carefully. Stack Exchange (or $SiteName, what is this, PHP?) is used at work and home, by people across the globe. Think before posting an inflammatory remark, even as a joke. Be appropriate and maintain a level of professionalism...yadda yadda.

For those that choose to interpret such a statement as "I do what I want", in practice things would remain basically the same. The warning could explicitly direct them to the policy post that swearing is strongly discouraged, and excessive use (presumably they've used some already) may carry with it consequences.

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 faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.

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 succinctly. It makes a much more natural way to start things off - even if you go in detail.

Civility is required at all times; rudeness will not be tolerated. Treat others with the same respect you’d want them to treat you because we’re all here to learn, together. Be tolerant of others who may not know everything you know, and bring your sense of humor.

may be a nice way to start the new code of conduct, and a nod to what we've used for years.

Other issues I have with the newer version would probably be fixed with a little bit of compression, I suspect

For example,

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 for any reason is unacceptable.

This is much more inclusive, without sounding like its written by a politically correct committee. I can think of other sorts of incivility that could occur on a tech centric site.

If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please alert the site moderators immediately by flagging the offending post(s). Moderators and/or Stack Exchange staff will investigate the issue and take appropriate action. For the rare case where you think only Stack Exchange staff can handle the situation, contact us directly. feels like it has better flow

Sexually suggestive language, imagery, and attention are not appropriate for any part of $SiteName, including meta and chat.

On the other hand may fit in better under the bit about language - since it deals with language use.

Choose your words carefully - what you say reflects on the site and yourself. Expletives are generally not allowed; don't be vulgar Think before posting an inflammatory remark, even as a joke and sexually suggestive language, imagery, and attention are not appropriate for any part of $SiteName, including meta and chat: if it isn't appropriate at work or home, it is not appropriate here. Bit of repetition there, since you're talking about the same things

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. I think another label would be better — partly because I think this is a bigger deal than merely being civil; partly because I think your community standards should stress that merely adopting the veneer of civility isn't enough to make harassment or group attacks acceptable on the site.

(I like that section overall. It's very important. But putting "Be civil" in front of it obscures the true meaning of that paragraph.)

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, and then come back and edit your question." I might even say something broadly similar to a new colleague if they're saying stupid things. I wouldn't say that to a boss or a customer. Is it really your intent to outlaw a helpful and neutral, if curt, moderation comment as "not nice"?

I try to help poor questions or answerers by suggesting how they might improve their post. If I were restricted to only things I would say to my boss, a lot of those close- or down-votes would become silent, simply because there are things you can't say to a boss, however politely.

Remember that everyone here is either generously donating their time to help others, or is trying to learn something or work through a problem. Assume that every question and answer is posted with good intentions.

This is usually but not always true. Assuming good faith is usually a good idea, but we do get visitors who spam the site or post inflammatory and/or offensive rants simply because they're frustrated with life. If everyone on every SE site were trying to help others or solve a problem, we wouldn't have spam flags and the other moderation tools, or even a guide to "being nice".

I can agree with the sentiment behind this suggestion. For example, when the same user repeatedly posts the very same question, I don't get aggrieved and tell them they're a bad person for wilfully posting duplicates; instead, I explain that it's counter-productive on SE sites, and how to edit a question to add more information. But the absolutism of "everyone here" and "every question and answer" are demonstrably false. A rule that's overtly based on false premises disrespects the people who are supposed to follow it, and will never be respected or followed. This statement needs to be weakened with an "in general", or a complete rewording, in order to be any use.

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 types of personal attack – is unacceptable.

I know there is going to come a point when someone who simply disagrees with something somebody has written is going to say "The mods are suppressing me." Islam.SE has its Sunni-Shia problems, Christianity.SE has its users who particularly "oppressed" and it is very easy to get one's nose out of joint. Furthermore, we are all sick of jabs that some people want to take in the guise of a question or answer, no matter how disingenuous.

At our best, the religion sites work very hard to remind everyone that we are secular (even if most of the members are believers) and that we are actually NOT interested in debate. On Christianity.SE, in particular, we regularly tell users that we are different from other sites.

Even with all of that, users will feel oppressed. They will feel their ideas are being singled out and attacked. For our religious sites, in particular, this language may be helpful:

Please note that Stack Exchange seeks neither to promote nor discourage any viewpoint. On religious sites, in particular, we do not wish to encourage ongoing arguments amongst religions or within sects thereof.

Questions and Answers should be neutral in tone, supported with historical and verifiable resources, and not used for proselytization or denigration. Evaluating the merits of ideas or behaviours within documented established traditions of the scope of a given site is not an attack. Demonstrating that a particular argument is outside the expressed tradition of the site is not suppression or oppression. Without exception, Stack Exchange religion sites seek to be academic resources and conform to norms of behaviour one would find within the academic environment that studies them.

If your professor would call you out for a statement, it is out of bounds.

I remember some Internet celebrity developer, Joel something or other, the name escapes me right now, pointing out that people don't read.

If they're not reading the shorter guidelines we have now, why are we expecting them to read longer ones?

Statements like this always tends to be overwrought and overdone, and I can see that happening here. We really should be able to say "Treat others with at least as much respect as you would like to be given yourself. That means no bigotry, no bullying, no stalking, no trolling, no rudeness. By all means disagree with something if you need to but attack the ideas, not the person. If you don't behave you will get your ass bounced out the door. Discussion over thanks for coming"

I don't believe this proposal will improve things:

1. The people who aren't reading the current guidelines still won't read them.
2. The people who consider themselves to be special snowflakes will continue to do so.
3. Overly-complex statements are open season for rules-lawyering jerks to whinge once they get banned.

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 brackets (parentheses) already serve to separate the comment from the preceding text.

The second is potentially more debatable:

– and any and all other type of personal attack –

I'd use 'types' in place of 'type', but you can argue for the singular. If it were "and all other type of personal attack", I think the singular would be wrong. If it were "and any other type of personal attack", the singular is OK, but "and any other types of personal attack" would also be OK. So, on balance I suggest it should be "and any and all other types of personal attack", but I won't be heartbroken if the change is not made (even though it will grate mildly on me every time I read it).

Tweaking the second issue

Looking at the second issue in the larger context, the suggested revision would leave a problem with agreement (of verb and noun) in the use of 'is' versus 'are'. Italics mark changes rather than emphasis.

Original:

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.

First suggested revision:

Attacking or harassing individuals based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, age, race, or religion – and any and all other types of personal attack – is unacceptable.

The 'is' is correct for the non-parenthetical statement; 'are' should replace 'is' for the parenthetical comment. This is a problem.

I suggest a slightly bigger rewording to keep the intent but fix the grammatical agreement:

Attacking or harassing individuals based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, age, race, or religion is unacceptable – and so are any and all other types of personal attack.

Or even, using a more active voice:

You may not attack or harass individuals based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, age, race, or religion. Any and all other types of personal attack are also unacceptable.

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.

For the love of all that is pure and true, please delete "a boss".

We want folks to tell the truth and to be frank and to the point.

We don't want folks self-censoring or window-dressing like we do when we talk to people who have more or less arbitrary power over our livelihoods.

Plain "colleagues" is just fine.

Drop that boss, I am a volunteer

Word like "boss", "client", "customer" is not appropriate when targeting volunteer audience. Stack Exchange users contribute freely, in their free time, at their own terms and you shouldn't expect them to treat others like a boss.

Now, don't get me wrong, I find "talking like to a boss" fantastically efficient approach. I've seen it used frequently in comments at Workplace.SE and it's... wonderful. Ruthless analysis of what's wrong with the post, packed into explicitly friendly message¹ looks and works great, even (especially!) when used against very low quality, heavily downvoted posts.

I am trying to learn this way myself and wouldn't hesitate to personally recommend it to anyone. But no matter how I like it, it simply has no place in a general guidance for volunteer users.

_{PS. Wonder if this was introduced as a "duck feature".}

Assume that every question and answer is posted with good intentions. 

What does that mean, really? That we should hold that a priori, before reading a single word of the post? Or that we must hold that view despite any kind of evidence to the contrary? Because if we did that, we would never have reason to flag any post.

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

This list is very US-centric, and you're the international site. I would add explicitely to that list the nationality, native language, as well as financial status.

Please notice that we are an international site and English is not the native language for all of the participants. Don't laugh at someone's mistakes. If the mistake is obvious, just fix it, otherwise ask for clarification.

I think the following sentence should change from:

Refrain from name-calling and other ad-hominem attacks.

to:

Refrain from name-calling and other personal attacks.

I'm an articulate speaker, with English as a first language, but I had to follow the link to find out what ad-hominem means. I suspect many others will do the same.

I think when you have to provide a link to a Wikipedia article to explain a phrase, it's not suitable for a help article.

Laura, sorry, here's another answer for you to read :)

My aim has been:

• reduced text - more chance of people reading it.
• make headings work in isolation (for people who will only skip).
• reduce what I feel is redundant be civil - be respectful.
• remove specifics of types of harassment. Harassment is harassment, the type is immaterial.
• Include reference to culture/language barrier.
• I also prefer 'avoid' for vulgarity, not an outright ban.

What does 'be nice' mean here at Stack Exchange?

Here we do not accept the unpleasantness that characterises much of the internet.

Be respectful: you are communicating with real people, treat them as you would wish to be treated.

Be welcoming and patient: everyone here is either helping others for free, or trying to solve a problem. Assume that every question and answer is posted with good intentions. Be patient with others who may not know everything you know.

Don't get personal: direct your criticism at ideas, not at people. Insults, harassment and personal attacks will be sanctioned.

Choose your words carefully: people of multiple cultures and languages are present here, what you write may be misunderstood, and you may be misunderstanding what you read. This also applies to humor.

Avoid vulgarity: if it's Not Safe For Work, it's Not Safe For Here either.

Abandon useless disputes: if you find yourself losing patience, walk away, someone else will take care of it.

Report bad behavior if you feel that you are being harassed, or you see someone else being harassed, flag the offending posts. You may also contact Stack Exchange staff directly if you feel that it is necessary.

Journeyman Geek makes good points about keeping things succinct. In my opinion something like:

What is Stack Exchange's code of conduct?

Treat others with respect, assume good intentions, and let us know if you see something wrong. Civility is required at all times; rudeness will not be tolerated. Treat others with the same respect you’d want them to treat you because we’re all here to learn. Be tolerant of others who may not know everything you know, and bring your sense of humor.

• You shouldn't talk to anyone in a way that you wouldn't do in person.

• Assume that every question and answer is posted with good intentions. Everyone here is either generously donating their time to help others or is trying to learn something or work through a problem.

• Focus on the post, not the person. Keep it professional, and avoid criticism of the author. Don't make assumptions about a user's identity, don't do name-calling or other ad-hominem attacks.

• Choose your words carefully. Profanities are not allowed. Think before posting an inflammatory remark, even as a joke; if you wouldn't say it to a stranger then don't say it here.

• Attacking or harassing individuals based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, age, race, religion or any other type of personal attack is completely unacceptable. Sexually suggestive language or content is not appropriate for any part of $SiteName, including meta and chat.

If you are uncomfortable with how you or another user is being treated, alert the site moderators by flagging the offending posts. Moderators and Stack Exchange staff will take appropriate action. For the rare case where you think only Stack Exchange staff can handle the situation, contact us directly.

The point is to keep things shorter and digestible without reducing the actual content of each point. Your current version gets so long and rambly it's hard to remember any point but the one you've just read.

Remember that everyone here is either generously donating their time to help others, or is trying to learn something or work through a problem. Assume that every question and answer is posted with good intentions.

That just isn't true of 90% of the questions here (or at least on Stack Overflow). Not because the askers are bad people, but because they don't understand what the site is about. Until they learn that, as pure as their heart my be, their intentions are not good for the site.

On top of that, often they're not actually trying to learn something or work through a problem, they're just trying to get an answer they don't have to work through. Which isn't an evil thing to do, but it's not good for the site.

If you go in expecting that many people will be help vampires because they don't know any better, you can try to guide them in the right direction—and many of them will turn into good users (and many of the rest will leave).

If you go in assuming they're already good citizens whose intentions are aligned with the site, you're either going to misinterpret their questions and handle them incorrectly, or get angry at them.

So, as nice as "assume good intentions" sounds, I think it's actually counter-productive. Assume they're good people, and that they want to become good citizens and learn what the right intentions are, but don't assume they already know.

This is horrible. It's longer than the old one, and it says less.

This community has earned a reputation for avoiding ugliness, harassment, and bigotry because people like you have refused to allow it.

Among whom has "the community" earned this reputation? What qualifies as "ugliness"? Harassment and bigotry are genuinely bad, but you've written this like you have no idea what they are. Furthermore, I don't see why you'd fill space in a "code of conduct" with something like this.

Please treat others with respect, assume good intentions, and let us know if you see something wrong. This isn't always easy, so we created a non-exhaustive set of principles intended to help all of us communicate well. Here are some specific guidelines to keep in mind:

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. Always conduct yourself in a respectful manner.

These two sentences are contradictory. I treat people disrespectfully in real life quite often if they're disrespectful themselves or if they're about to do something dangerous and they don't seem to realise it. Are you sure you meant to write the first sentence?

We're all in this together, so be welcoming and patient. Remember that everyone here is either generously donating their time to help others, or is trying to learn something or work through a problem. Assume that every question and answer is posted with good intentions. Treat others with the same respect you’d want them to treat you because we’re all here to learn, together. Be patient with others who may not know everything you know, and bring your sense of humor.

This is false and everyone knows it. Lots of people come to Stack Overflow, because they're in the middle of an interview and they can't solve the problem, or because they have a homework assignment that they want someone else to do. Writing this sort of thing in an official document discredits both the document and its author.

Also, why did you need to bring up the "respect" thing again? You've already said it.

Focus on the post, not the person. Keep it professional, and avoid criticism of the author, (as opposed to the post). Don't make assumptions about a user's identity, and avoid references to demographics unless they are an essential part of the question or answer. Refrain from name-calling and other ad-hominem attacks.

You already covered "keep it professional" two paragraphs ago.

Choose your words carefully. Expletives are generally not allowed; don't be vulgar. Think before posting an inflammatory remark, even as a joke: if it isn't appropriate at work or home, it is not appropriate here.

Why weaken "expletives are not allowed" by inserting a weasel word?

Not everybody is from your home, not everybody works with you, and certain things that aren't appropriate in polite conversation may well be appropriate at work or at home depending on the particular situation. Why are you making assumptions about our lives one paragraph after you implored us not to make assumptions about others?

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. Sexually suggestive language, imagery, and attention are not appropriate for any part of $SiteName, including meta and chat.

You covered harassing people already. I understand that the explicit enumeration is required for some legal reason.

If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please alert the site moderators immediately by flagging the offending post(s). Moderators and/or Stack Exchange staff will investigate the issue and take appropriate action. For the rare case where you think only Stack Exchange staff can handle the situation, contact us directly.

This adds something to the previous "Be nice" section. Why not just add this to the old page?

This proposal seems ideal to me. Encouraging people to act well is always a good idea. I do, however, propose an addition.

It is mentioned clearly that discrimination against minorities is unacceptable, and this is laudable. But we need one more step. There are also those who accuse others of such discrimination falsely to allow them to trigger a flow of downvotes. I recently witnessed this happening to another user on Travel.

The biggest problem with such accusations is that many people trust others to have read and understood deeply the content so accused, and are therefore willing to let it be as 'probably true'. Even if they don't agree, they may not flag, subconsciously considering the topic 'tainted'.

So, I propose that the name-calling part could be improved with some extra detail: "This includes accusations of sexism, racism, and homophobia. Whether it is true or not, one of the two deserves a flag."

I do not know any other way to encourage that people take extra time to read posts before judgement. Prejudice against someone because the next post included the word "misogyny" targeted at them falsely is a serious problem.

I just want to be sure to address the fact that being wrong about this subject is as dangerous as ignoring real discrimination.

This, however, requires people to read, which as we've seen on some sites with on/off topic, people just don't do.

This very incident happened earlier today, when a user (not a new user, either) had a question closed for being off-topic (shopping reccomendation) and got very upset and offended about the question being closed. This could have easily been avoided by simply reading what is on-topic before posting his question. ^{Link to question here, soon to be deleted.}

Full-size image.

I want to suggest adding the following:

Do not provoke: If your post (especially comments) can be interpreted by reasonable people as having an intent of provoking negative response from other member(s) of the community then it is not welcome here. If you can not post it a way that is not likely to be taken as provocative then do not post it.

I think most of the behavior we are wanting to curtail happens in comments and are the result of comments that would fit in here. These comments are in general not constructive or productive anyway and even though often they have a legitimate concern they often seem intentionally phrased in a way that is intended to provoke rather than to help or clarify.

Stack Exchange currently permits "sexually suggestive language and imagery" where its use is essential and strictly on topic. We have a biology site where I don't think you want to ban discussion of the biological aspect of sexual relations. We also have religion sites where matters of sexual morality often reach the hot list.

Users should be encouraged to be cautious, to report sexual harrassment, and yet to welcome honest on-topic enquiry.

The spirit of the updated laws is awesome. But--first, despite the length my comment will accrue (& it will)--I <3 Brevity. Please; forbear a moment with an old EULA hostage-negotiator & reference publisher? Responses to the actual wording, imvho, point to a general issue: the code tries to cover the widest possible range of infractions, & thus creates the wrong kind of stack. The user-objections imply that some of this rewording is less suited to an FAQ-friendly code of action than it might be to a "See also:" reference at the end, or a EULA (sorry). Example: instead of simply declaring that "Ad hominem attacks are unacceptable in any circumstance. Period" we are given instead a lengthy definition of "ad hominem." Such a definition vastly increases the likelihood of people begging questions like that of "expletives", while in fact, defining either is unnecessary in a basic code.

It should be possible to work in a (very) pithy preface defining "civil" language & demeanor on this site--because, this code is exemplary--but removing the contractual legalese should enhance clarity & increase adherence to le Code Stackexchange. Besides, a code of conduct like this deserves better than to stray into "defined, for the purposes of this Agreement" territory, as though it was attempting to sneak T&Cs past the unwary.

For the benefit of users who need clarification of a term like "expletives" (tho' that might cover more ground if "condescending or judgmental modifiers & expletives" were classed with ad hominem attacks as point-blank unacceptable): definition of a few choice terms could appear after the body of the text, with a link to a preferred dictionary for readers seeking further enlightenment. PS: Ty for removing the vague & always-suspect "nice" :).

Wouldn't "Attacking or harassing individuals is unacceptable." be much simpler and more complete than the current list of specific offenses?

As written it sounds like only some kinds of harassment (those explicitly mentioned) are unwelcome. For example, harassing and attacking someone on non-personal grounds seems to be all right (like when their posts use a programming language I don't like).

If indeed all forms of harassment are unwelcome it would be much simpler to just write that. That would then obviously also contain harassment based on gender, harassment based on age, ...

I really hate it; I think the former version was much better.

I am talking about a bunch of sites (so, Unix & Linux, some others coming out of Area 51 now), not Stack Exchange in general: those places are not work, aren't home, it is not out with friends. Maybe the company behind Stack Exchange would have a big advantage in making this like a workplace, I don't know. Anyway, I do not like bullying, but direct, honest, flamboyant, frank and maybe rude talking is often part of what places are full of nerds, not geeks, like I am.

I would reword the whole paragraph to

Do not say anything Linus wouldn't write in LKML.

There is precious little that the new (old?) code adds to the table. It reads like something promulgated by the Office of Harassment Prevention and Groupthink.

• There's too much talk about sex in the policy. Sex harassment, gender discrimination, sexual images. Can be replaced with "Stack Exchange doesn't care about sex, and you shouldn't, either".

• Is issuing the code of conduct really necessary? A well-behaving community already does moderate all the stuff you mentioned and plenty of what has gone unsaid. The be nice rule was elegant in its simplicity and reliance on community consensus.

Printing out new policies every other week is a sure sign of bureaucracy. Are you sure you want to turn Stack Exchange into another Wikipedia?

EDIT: based on Robert Harvey's remarks, I can understand that this policy is written by lawyers and is intended to exculpate Stack Exchange as a business entity from allegations of sitting for so long without a formal anti-harassment code of conduct. If it is mandated legally, I see no point in discussing it. Simply lock the post, and be done with it. Also be done with the spirit of community moderation, as well.

"This community has earned a reputation for avoiding ugliness, harassment, and bigotry" - so it sounds like we're in pretty good shape, no? So why do we want to change things, again? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.