Don't worry if others give feedback about your question -- they’re trying to make it helpful to as many people as possible.

This needs to be made clearer. It's not a "don't worry", it's a "be receptive" (you've used "be generous" later on). If people are just not worrying about feedback, questions aren't going to be improved.

No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language.

Just no put-downs, no matter how subtle. Perhaps it goes without saying, but I think the CoC should be clear here. It has been pointed out that the Be Nice policy covers this.

“Thanks for improving my question. I’m happy to provide any other info you’ll need to answer it.”

We really don't need askers thanking us for every edit we make. It's unnecessary, distracting noise.

No bigotry. We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion -- and those are just a few examples. When in doubt, just don’t.

This is much better! The discrimination list from the previous version was too long and impossible to enforce. This is easier to digest, has clear guidelines which can be enforced and doesn't ooze identity politics.

Chat TL;DR;... Avoid jokes and sarcasm -- tone is hard to decipher online.

This is a bad rule - chat often has jokes and sarcasm. Taking the jokes out of chat will take the people out. As suggested in the comments perhaps ”Be careful with jokes...” would make this clearer.

"Feedback"

You've used the word "feedback" a lot. It doesn't sound quite right. I imagine you're using it to encompass both positive and negative feedback, but I'm not sure people need to be told to "Be generous in... accepting feedback" when that's positive. On the other hand, we probably do need to be told to be generous in giving positive feedback.

As an aside, thank you for taking the time to really think about what the active members of the community need. Nobody wants this network to fail because all the experienced users ended up alienated. But we also don't want to be missing out on potential experts for silly reasons. I think this new CoC clearly expresses this.

Please replace "learning" with "knowledge-sharing"

^{(or with something else that doesn't feel like obscuring that Stack Exchange is about questions and answers - say, "learning site community").}

This Code of Conduct helps us build a learning knowledge-sharing community...

We’re committed to building a kind, collaborative learning knowledge-sharing community

I (and probably vast majority of site visitors) come here for help with our questions. We type our questions into web search which shows links to Stack Exchange pages where we can get answers we're looking for.

If our searches will start showing learning exercises instead of answers, that will be very disappointing. Quoting self, I don't want my search results polluted with useless solutions to homework dumps.

Besides above, please consider two relatively minor spelling changes to the text:

We created this Code of Conduct because it reinforces the respect our community members expects expect from one another. Also, having a this code provides us...

Also I would like to emphasize concerns regarding word "help" laid out in details in this answer. In order to address it, please consider replacing this word with "answer":

to get help answers...

to help others provide answers

Since answer referred above appeals to experience of two smaller and rather special sites in the network, it is worth pointing that folks at Stack Overflow appear to share similar concern:

^{The primary purpose is to build a repository of questions and answers. By its very nature, of course, that is going to help people, and that is the rationale behind creating the site... but it is not the rationale behind using it.}

^{If you make the primary purpose "helping people" (with the implicit "at all costs" that goes along with it), and let "build a repository" be the secondary purpose, the secondary purpose is going to get forgotten and SO will devolve into a shitty Experts Exchange clone...}

• If you’re here to get help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you. Our community is made possible by volunteers. Don't worry if others give feedback about your question -- they’re trying to make it helpful to as many people as possible.

This bullet point sounds weird to me. Specifically the part where it says

"Don't worry if...",

I feel like it would be better if it were written as

"Don't take offense if others give feedback or edit your question..."

That sounds more fluid to me and seems to more directly address the people who get upset when they have their question edited or receive feedback on how to edit their question. I don't think people are worried, per se, but more likely annoyed by edits that seem to change their question. And considering we have the following example of an unfriendly comment, I think this wording would more strongly reinforce that we don't want this behavior.

“I came to get help, not to get my question edited.”

One item that popped out to me on the previous one, that is still present in this version:

Our Expectations

...

• If you're here to help others, be patient and welcoming.

I realize that the "welcoming" term was beaten to death on the previous post. This really isn't about that.

The initial clause, "If you're here to help others", makes the rest of the sentence far less meaningful than it should be.

• Some people are not here to help others, or at least don't behave as though they are. Should this advice not apply to them? I could easily see a bad actor "rules lawyering" this.
• Should this (particularly "be patient") not apply to people who are seeking help as well?

Ideally, this would be expressed as

• Be patient and welcoming.

full stop.

At that point you can clarify what that might mean for different audiences.

Thank you for your thoughtful response to all the feedback.

I have some minor wording suggestions:

If you’re here to get help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you. Our community is made possible by volunteers. Don't worry if others give feedback about your question -- they’re trying to make it helpful to as many people as possible.

I would respin that "don't worry" language. Comments shouldn't be worrisome; let's not plant the idea that they might be. Instead, keep it positive (and maybe we can sneak in a bit of guidance). My suggested changes are in bold:

If you’re here to get help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you. Our community is made possible by volunteers. When people give you feedback, they’re trying to make your question helpful to as many people as possible. The best way to respond to comments is with an edit.

I suggest adding the word in bold here:

If you’re here to help others, be patient and welcoming. Learning how to participate in our worldwide community can be daunting, especially if someone is new. Offer support if you see someone struggling or otherwise in need of help.

USians outnumber others on the network and we sometimes see people assuming that US norms apply to everybody. They don't. Let's spend one word to plant that hint. (This issue has come up on The Workplace and IPS, among others.)

We take your reports seriously. Those who don’t follow the Code of Conduct in good faith may face repercussions...

In the draft, "in good faith" is underlined. Is there supposed to be a link there or is that for emphasis? You haven't used underlining for emphasis elsewhere, hence my confusion.

We welcome your feedback on this and every other aspect of what we do at Stack Overflow.

I know that in this context Stack Overflow is the name of the company that also provides the Stack Exchange network of sites. But a lot of newcomers might think you mean SO the site.

I feel like gnat said it in a more polite fashion, but when you talk about this...

We’re committed to building a kind, collaborative learning community...

...I get very antsy.

So I admit that I'm still a part of the "Old Guard". I'm still very much set on trying to help but my focus as of late has been on curation. Because we still lack a reliable definition of scope on Stack Overflow, my curation efforts genuinely feel like they fly in the face of the goals and objectives of the community team putting this CoC together.

Again, I see the common-sense language in here; we can't tolerate jerks who just wanna be jerks here, which is important to codify. But hearing that we're building a "learning" community and seeing that codified again in this version of the CoC tells me that the direction of Stack Overflow is changing.

I'm not a fan of this.

First of all, thank you for listening to the community and providing this updated version. It is far superior to the first round, and I am personally pretty happy with the changes.

I see one thing (in addition to some of the other stuff people have already mentioned above) that I still would like to see changed:

Avoid jokes and sarcasm

I understand why this exists, but as others have pointed out this is hard to enforce. Jokes aren't inherently mean spirited. They don't always detract from the question or answer, and humor can go a long way to help deal with a situation that otherwise might be unpleasant. I think the language here needs to be softened. Perhaps something like this:

Understand that tone and humor may not translate across cultures or over text. Mean-spirited humor or sarcasm that is directed at other users is never acceptable.

This will distinguish actually mean jokes from replies to answers like:

Thanks for your help. I should have noticed that I typo'd a variable name. Sorry I'm an idiot!

The above response isn't harming anyone, but would run afoul of the current standard. It would also prevent issues with perfectly reasonable answers that contain harmless jokes like:

class Milk()
    def make_milkshake(self):
        print("I'm delicious")

Since CoC proposes warning and suspending users for inappropriate comments, consider respective adjustment in software to make this process more transparent. Suggest to show them (deleted) comments that led to punishment, to help them learn what specifically went wrong and what to avoid in the future.

Currently the only way for user to learn is to ask moderator to share deleted comments. This involves moderator load and can't scale.

Related feature request at MSO: Allow users to view their deleted comments, especially flagged ones (over 300 upvotes).

_{There are probably many ways how this can be implemented but one that naturally springs to mind is to add to user profile a link to the list of "deleted recent comments", similar to how it is done for deleted recent posts.}

First a compliment: Much, much better than before!

I like that it is also now clear that new people are expected to get acquainted with SE/SO. Still I think it can be improved.

Unacceptable behavior.

I would still include Be nice with a first paragraph. One problem with those "Don't do X" is that it invites rule-lawyering: But what I did was not X! even if it violates Be nice. Then you have a discussion and drama. Another problem is that you could act mean despite not violating any negative rule (This is a problem with law enforcement; people are very creative to circumvent rules). Third I really would like to have a positive motto instead of negative ones; it reminds us to strive for goodness, not simply avoiding badness.

Instead of No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language I would change it into Avoid subtle put-downs or unfriendly language. The problem is that, well, subtle is subtle and the judgement of both subtle and unfriendly is subjective and culture dependent, so you steer very easily into this territority. A friendly reminder is IMHO therefore more effective than giving the idea that it is equivalent to harassing.

Meta as intermediary is still missing!

You are going from "Flag content" right to "Contact us". I don't think that it is a wise move because SE/SO has a massive userbase and most conflicts can be resolved in Meta. People and moderators know at best what is expected and are quite aware of the userbase; I witnessed many instances when Meta successfully defused a situation where a more direct approach from less informed supervisors would have escalated the situation.

Overall my impression is: We can live with that, but it depends dangerously heavily on the quality of the people responsible for the moderation. If overzealous moderators give people the impression that they need to recheck their words twice, a chilling effect occurs (not in the legal sense, but anticipatory obedience) and people will simply stop giving answers and comments.

Who arbitrates what is "offensive"? Do not accuse people of being bigots without intent.

I have a bit of an issue with this section (emphasis mine):

No bigotry. We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion...

While I agree with the sentiment that we shall not intentionally or through recklessness/willful ignorance try to hurt people, a problem may arise when a user says something like...

"Well, I am offended when you say that! That is a deeply held religious belief of mine, and now you say that there is no evidence that it is true?! How dare you!"

The rule is based on the emotion of the recipient instead of the intent and action of the sender.

The problem is that we are letting the one that claims to be offended to set the rule, and how it should be interpreted. So you can have posters that did not at all intend to cause offense, that ended up doing it anyway and get hit by the rule.

With this it becomes so that I can write something that is objectively true and indisputable... say for instance:

Sainthood and prophecies aside: if we had applied modern legislation, Mother Theresa would have been jailed for taking money from dictators and for horrendously poor hospital routines; Moses would have been a convicted in the ICC as a war criminal; and Mohammad would have been considered a pedophile and convicted of child rape.

...and then get hit by the rule, because those that hold these people in high regard could claim offense.

Intent and action

All rules must be based on the intent and action of the one who the rule concerns. Therefore I move that the paragraph be modified to read:

No bigotry. We do not tolerate any language intended to discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion...

In short: we have to be able to tell the truth, if it is relevant to the issue, and even if it hurts. Moderators can then base their judgment on apparent intent, and — more importantly — on whether the post is discriminating rather trying to read minds and guess whether someone will be upset about that or not.

Of course people shall not be able to use this as a Get Out Of Jail Free Card, and moderators should be allowed to try to suss bad intent in disguise.

EDIT: To clarify... this rule begins with "No bigotry". So if you are found to break this rule, you are being accused of being a bigot. Remember that online, duck-typing is in full effect; we are defined by our actions. So just as the cliché "I'm not a racist, but..." cannot be used to change the fact that you just made yourself into a racist by acting racist, from the other point of view, you — as a moderator — cannot say "Well, I am not saying you are a bigot... but I am taking down your post because it breaks the "No bigotry" rule". When you act upon this rule, you are accusing someone of being a bigot, which is a very harsh thing to accuse someone of.

Therefore: since the rule implicitly makes all offenders of this rule be labeled as bigots, it must be shown that there was intent to be that. That one or more in the audience pipe up and shout "We are offended by that!!" should not be enough to label someone a bigot.

I missed the opportunity to give feedback on the last version, but this is a big improvement. There is one aspect I want to point out that I haven't seen in other comments:

With the current presentation, I get the feeling that the code is trying to "sneak" in a thought process we like under the guise of being friendly. I'm particularly thinking of this entry in the Unfriendly/Friendly table:

I came to get help, not to get my question edited.

---

Thanks for improving my question. ...

The difference between these statements is not just that one is unfriendly and the other is not. In one case the questioner objects to the edit, in the other they thank for the edit. We want edits to be good, and we want people to accept good edits, but edits are not always good. I think the code of conduct could benefit from acknowledging this and showing a graceful way to point it out. For example:

Thanks for trying to help, but your edit does not preserve the meaning of my question. I have rolled it back and tried to clarify the question with an edit of my own.

Accepting collaboration in the form of clarifying or generalizing edits is an important part of using SE and should be stated plainly, not be implicitly stated in an example of something else.

From the Chat TL;DR:

Be kind. Be polite and friendly with others. Avoid jokes and sarcasm -- tone is hard to decipher online. If a situation makes it hard to act kindly, stop engaging and move on.

Please don't tell people to categorically avoid jokes and sarcasm in chat. Chat is full of jokes—in fact it is the place for making jokes, usually—and sarcasm is an ordinary part of conversation. Both of these things are fine. Conveying tone is is difficult, but finding out how to convey jokes well, and handling things when they land poorly, is just part of conversation.

Others have suggested rewording this focus on the difficulty of communication but really, this sentence just needs to be ditched.

Summarise that you shouldn't be a jerk or harass people or something instead here and let people handle poorly executed jokes sensibly like we currently do.

I prefer this version to the previous one! I am glad that the changes made were all positive. I'm also happy that it is now on github. Of course, I still have some feedback, some of which was already echoed by others.

The main document

Be generous in both giving and accepting feedback.

This seems an odd use of the word generous. It reads to me as "be extensive in the quantity and length of feedback you give". Generous, when used as an adjective, means larger than expected. While feedback should be thorough, I don't think it should be generous. Instead, perhaps you could use a different and less ambiguous word.

No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language.

I still strongly dislike this wording. It is not only too vague to be enforced and extremely subjective, but can be used as an excuse both to troll and to be a backseat mod. Simply telling people to be nice to each other and be respectful encompases this. Unlike many of the other parts of the document, this one is based heavily on subjective opinions rather than intent. Instead, why not tell people to behave professionally in both feedback given and in response to feedback received? That is all we need.

Avoid jokes and sarcasm

Avoid jokes? Really? I can't tell you how much I dislike this. While it is true that tone is difficult to decipher on a text-based communication medium, we should absolutely not be told to refrain from making jokes. Instead, why not simply say to avoid making jokes at another's expense, or even to avoid making hurtful jokes? It's unnecessarily redundant to specify sarcasm, since that is already (typically) unfriendly. I've made jokes in some of my comments and answers. I hope I do not have to remove them, despite their benign nature.

The TL;DR

I think the tl;dr is too long now, given that the main document has been trimmed. Perhaps it should keep only the bolded text and either completely drop the rest, or make it significantly shorter. A tl;dr should be short enough that you won't just skim it.

Have we all forgotten about DRY? The chat tl;dr should not be distinct. The only difference between the two is that the chat rules don't tell you to be patient and welcoming. This is such a minor difference that there is no need to have two separate documents. The fact that it already has the conditional "if you're here to help others" (as opposed to only being here to socialize in chat), there is no need to remove it from the chat document.

Title of the document

I propose keeping the name of the Be Nice policy. I, like many others, dislike the term "Code of Conduct". I have seen too many projects fall into chaos when such things were created. It simply leaves a dirty taste in my mouth. The previous policy was called Be Nice which itself seems more of a friendly reminder that we are all here to learn, and less like an authoritarian document to be (ab)used by moderators and trolls at will.

What about sites that aren't for "help"?

I'm assuming that this code of conduct will be placed on each SE site across the network at <sitename>.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice, right? In that case, the wording doesn't make sense for certain sites. It says

• If you’re here to get help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you. Our community is made possible by volunteers. Don't worry if others give feedback about your question -- they’re trying to make it helpful to as many people as possible.

• If you’re here to help others, be patient and welcoming. Learning how to participate in our community can be daunting, especially if someone is new. Offer support if you see someone struggling or otherwise in need of help.

Overall, most SE sites are about helping users and sharing knowledge about topic. But not all of them. Most notably, both Programming Puzzles & Code Golf and Puzzling are about sharing and solving recreational puzzles/riddles for fun rather than sharing knowledge about a particular topic.

With that in mind, some of the wording is... awkward. And encourages the wrong behavior. I can't really speak for puzzling, since I don't use that site very much. But there are some things I notice for Code-golf.

If you’re here to get help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you.

Code-golf already has a pretty serious issue with new users asking coding-help questions. This wording seems to imply that is appropriate for the site.

Don't worry if others give feedback about your question

Code-golf doesn't have questions. It has challenges. Similarly on Puzzling, I'd assume they have "Riddles" instead of "Questions".

If you’re here to help others, be patient and welcoming.

For the most part, the majority of users answers questions challenges are there for recreation rather than to help the OP with a particular problem they're having. There are tips questions, but those are the exception rather than the rule.

Will nitpicks like these be customizable per-site?

'Avoid jokes' isn't a good suggestion on a site for human beings

Humour is often an essential part of friendly communication between humans.

Humourless conversation is, for many, unfriendly, alienating, and inhuman.

I understand that jokes are risky, and that you do sometimes have to think twice to consider whether they might be misinterpreted. I could understand a wording along the lines of

Be careful with jokes and sarcasm, especially when interacting with a user you don't know well.

But for all the good intent in the new CoC, 'avoid jokes' really seems like a step in the wrong direction. A site where humour is not allowed will be a site restricted in its level of kindness and friendliness, and may well be less welcoming and less inclusive as a result.

@Undo This just codifies the rules that we already use, moderation is still at the discretion of the individual moderators, and we've clarified that in this revision. - Tim

Emphasis mine.

I have to disagree here. This CoC goes above and beyond the current policy and, at least reads as such, is much more harsh than the current policy. Should it be policed to the letter, I can't imagine many users sticking around.

Criticism is no longer acceptable unless you bring it with a feathery touch. Jokes are no longer acceptable at all. Are we still allowed to happily and freely (both as in speech and as in at no cost) share our knowledge?

I don't know what SE has become, but it used to be a community by developers for developers. To share knowledge. We share that knowledge the way a developer does. All the sister sister sites were, initially, about themese that were relevant to developers (professional and hobbyist).

These rules feel like they were made by managers. A document meant to be (politically) correct at any and all times and ignore reality. That's what it feels like. And without being able to pinpoint the exact cause or or knowing how to fix it, I'd almost say we got bigger problems at hand. A policy codification isn't going to make SE more welcoming and that was if I remember the main cause for all this.

I just want to point out two, in my opinion, great improvements:

1) The examples of unacceptable behavior

They are less exaggerated than in the first version and it helps that you show not only what not to say, but also how to do it better.

Still, allow me a little bit of nitpicking (p. 2):

This is called Invariance and Covariance. If you Google it, you’ll find tutorials that can explain it much better than we can in a comment here.

If you wrote that, you might receive a reply that you shouldn't answer in comments. So I suggest this little change:

This is called Invariance and Covariance. If you Google it, you’ll find tutorials that can explain it much better than we can in an answer here.

2) Reporting and Enforcement

It's good that you dropped the part about replying (via comment or chat message), as this would probably have caused more problems. Unacceptable behavior should preferably be handled by moderators.

The Q&A TL;DR is too long.

The Q&A TL;DR, while shorter than the full version, is still 3/4 of a page long and contains 187 words and seven paragraphs (or two paragraphs and five bullets). It's doubtful that a new person with an urgent drive-by question will read all of that.

Since bringing a problem without suggesting a solution is rude, I'll offer a suggestion: How about just keeping the boldface parts for the TL;DR version?

This is still seven paragraphs (or two paras and five bullets), but it's only 67 words and doesn't look so much like a wall of scolding text.

Welcome to Stack Overflow

We’re committed to building a kind, collaborative learning community. By participating here, you are committing to our Code of Conduct:

• If you’re here to get help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you.

• If you’re here to help others, be patient and welcoming.

• Be generous in both giving and accepting feedback.

• Be kind.

• [Flag harmful behavior](#reporting-enforcement), whether it’s directed at you or others.

For more, see our [Code of Conduct](LINK).

Maybe it's just me, but "be generous in both giving and accepting feedback" doesn't seem quite right. The most natural meaning of "generous" here is to give a lot of feedback, but this is a code of conduct – the more important point is that feedback should be "kind, respectful, clear, and constructive." And "generosity" in receiving feedback is even less clear.

Thus I'd suggest changing "generous" to gracious,¹ so that the sentence reads:

Be gracious in both giving and accepting feedback.

To me, encouraging users to be generous in the "leave more feedback" sense seems better suited for individual metas than a global Code of Conduct. But if I'm off base, another possibility would be to use both words:

Be gracious and generous in both giving and accepting feedback.

Note that the sentence in question shows up in the CoC, the Q&A, and the Chat sections; I'm recommending updating it everywhere it appears.

^{HT to Dragonrage for suggesting this word, though I'm suggesting it be used in a different location.}

Be kind. Be [...] friendly with others. [...]

I'm not really sure friendly is a suitable word on there. While the CoC follows with some example of friendly language, the previous instance of "friendly" might get misunderstood with "greeting" (e.g. "Hi", "Hello") and "salutation" (e.g. "Good morning") in a post, or posting chatty comments to get "friendly", those which we have previously considered them as noise.

However, as of current, I'm not sure if there's a better word choice for this.

No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language behaviour

Friendliness is about behaviour. If we're talking about language, that's about civility and politeness. Moderating our words to give the appearance of civility and politeness is fine, but I can have really unfriendly behaviour with entirely friendly language: see the concept of backhanded compliments. (“Goodness, you're doing much better at using English today.”)

If we're aiming to be a friendly environment, we need to embody that with the behaviour we provide, not just the words we use.

So in the interest of pursuing small sentence tweaks, this is the one I'd suggest.

This makes me really sad. I've invested so much time in math.SE. It won't feel the same if you adopt this code. It's slightly improved over the first version, but to my mind it's still an essentially totalitarian document. A site that tries to be welcoming by telling people under pain of consequences that they must avoid jokes is a very sad paradox. I hope you'll see how narrow-minded this is at some point and revoke it. Until then, I won't feel all that welcome anymore.

It looks good.

Perhaps make a mention:

Tolerance. It's important to remember we're a global community, what may be rude in one culture, may be considered direct and useful in another, what may be considered as excessive ingratiation in one culture, may be considered as refined and polite conduct in another. Also for many users English is a second language and sentence structure can sometimes come off as sounding rude. If in doubt clarify, rather than assume the worst.

This is a tremendous improvement. Thank you for listening to our feedback!

I saw some serious issues with the last draft, I like the current one. The following are things that maybe can be improved further. If not, I'm happy with it as it stands.

This Code of Conduct helps us build a learning community that is rooted in kindness, collaboration, and mutual respect.

We are not actually a learning community. We offer no structured learning here. You cannot learn how to program by just going on StackOverflow and start reading. Sure, we all hope people learn from what they read here, but that's a byproduct of getting a solution to a problem.

Maybe just omit it? It doesn't lose any of it's message:

This Code of Conduct helps us build a community that is rooted in kindness, collaboration, and mutual respect.

(same goes for the sentence at the bottom : "Thank you for working with us to build a kind, collaborative, and respectful learning community. ". Just omit the "learning".)

where all people feel welcome and can participate, regardless of expertise or identity

This sounds great... but it's simply not true. There is no way to participate on Stack Overflow for example, if you cannot program (in whatever language on whatever level, but zero just doesn't work). Sure the site works, you can click all the buttons and write text but it will get you nowhere. A site for "professionals and enthusiasts" means you will need to be one of them or options for participation will be close to nil. I don't know what you meant to say, maybe "education" would be a better word? I don't care where somebody learned to program or if they are right in the middle. Was that what you meant?

Don't worry if others give feedback about your question -- they’re trying to make it helpful to as many people as possible

"Don't worry" sounds a little off here. Maybe something long the lines of:

Be open for feedback about your question -- we are trying to make it helpful to as many people as possible

If you’re here to get help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you. [...]

If you’re here to help others, be patient and welcoming. [...]

I'd say just skip the conditions. They don't do anything really.

Make it as easy as possible for others to help you. [...]

Be patient and welcoming. [...]

“I think you’re asking how to add a swap after system installation. Is that correct?”

That makes it sounds like the unfriendly version was just flat out wrong. Assuming it isn't and it really is hard to understand to a point where one cannot make sense of it:

I have problems understanding your English. It is unclear to me what you are asking. Could you please edit your question to be easier to read?"

“Thanks for improving my question. I’m happy to provide any other info you’ll need to answer it.”

To me this sounds... uhm... dishonest or sarcastic. Again it's not actually on the same level in regards to the meaning of the comment. If you did not like the edit that was made, there should be nice ways to disapprove.

Thanks for trying to improve my question. Your edit wasn't exactly what I intended but I guess that means my original text was hard to understand. I have edited it again to clarify what I meant.

Those who don’t follow the Code of Conduct in good faith may face repercussions deemed appropriate by our moderation team.

That sentence sounds like it's a patchwork of words. Especially the "good faith" part seems tagged on later. I agree with the meaning, but the wording seems awkward to me. But maybe that's just me. I did not come up with any better suggestions either. Native speakers to the rescue?

as for the two different TL;DRs:

It seems as if in chat people don't need to be helpful and patient or make it easy to help them. That does not make sense to me. Just use the same TL;DR for both please. Especially since comments can be moved to chat, having two sets of rules would be weird.

We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate

Please replace that with

We don’t tolerate any language intended to offend or alienate

While that leaves us with a very vague mind reading ability of moderators to tell me whether I intended something, I think it's better than asking the perceived victim. The moderators should be a relatively neutral third party. Asking either the victim or the perp if the crime was a crime is pointless. That takes a third party to find out.

Those who don’t follow the Code of Conduct in good faith may face repercussions deemed appropriate by our moderation team.

'in good faith' is underlined. Maybe consider changing that to bold? I tried to click it, as I thought it was a link.

All the emphasis is done in bold, and all the links are underlined. That 'in good faith' is the only thing that deviates from it and that bugs me.

-[Flag harmful behavior](#reporting-enforcement), whether it’s directed at you or others. Every person contributes to creating a respectful community.

For more, see our [Code of Conduct](LINK).

From the Q&A TL;DR and Chat TL;DR: Just pointing out that the links are still missing, you might want to edit those in before you put it live.

As for the part on 'jokes and sarcasm':

Coming from an IPS mod, making a joke underneath a question if you're not the OP is definitely not a good idea, the questions are often about personal stuff and someone joking about that might actually be hurtful. Even then, jokes can also come in the form of mild self-deprecating remarks put in the question, a deliberate funny choice of words... Banning all of them won't work, realizing they might be a bad idea is a good thing though.

Banning jokes from chat (it's in the chat TL;DR as well) won't be received enthusiastically either. But seeing a room where people are constantly aiming jokes at each other, and the jokes being about the other person itself, might make new users feel hesitant to participate in fear of being ridiculed.

It might be good to focus on jokes directed at a person or the situation they're in. A general play on words, or funny cat picture shouldn't be banned. Jokes directed at people or groups of people might do a lot of harm though. So, I think the use of the word 'jokes' is a little too broad here, and I'd suggest narrowing that down a little to avoid people thinking there's no fun allowed on SE!

Regardless of intent, this behavior can have a significant negative impact on others.

Consider more plain language: "Even if you don't intend it, people can take this kind of language very personally."

(I actually think this statement is super important. So much of the arguing over "unwelcoming" behaviour seems to boil down to "But when I say X, I'm not intending to be a dick, I'm just saying X. People shouldn't be so sensitive.")

Consider expanding, "..., especially when their cultural background is different to yours."

“I came to get help, not to get my question edited.”

The "friendly" version of this comes off weird and passive-aggressive to me.

“Thanks for improving my question. I’m happy to provide any other info you’ll need to answer it.”

Suggestion that partially preserves intent:

"Thanks for the edit - I realise it was a bit unclear before."

Unacceptable behaviour

Unacceptable Behavior

No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language...

It seems slightly incorrect to start these bullet points as "No X" under the rubric "Unacceptable". The unacceptable behaviour here is the subtle put-downs or unfriendly language.

Culture

I'm surprised there's no direct reference to the number of different cultures using this same site. I'm sure that part of the problem is American users believing the site to be "American culture by default", and I think it would be worth directly addressing that. Even if just half a sentence, "people from many countries", or whatever.

Unacceptable Behavior

I am in agreeance with most of the examples in this section the only one I do not agree with is stating "You could Google this in 5 seconds". I do not see this as a subtle put-down. More of a reminder that the question should be googled first before asking a question here as very often if not most often an answer has already been provided. That said the rest of this section I agree with.

Welcome to Stack Overflow

"Don't worry if others give feedback about your question". This seams broad to me and maybe needs to be more specific. Not all feedback is constructive so maybe reword this to be more specific to the type of feedback. "Don't take constructive feedback the wrong way - - The commenter is just trying to help you improve your post." For the most part the rest of this section is clear and acceptable IMO.

Avoid jokes and sarcasm

One final note that applies to all sections of conduct is the portion about jokes. Jokes and Sarcasm are simply a tone of levity that is part of the Q/A and chat culture we participate in. I think it better to say "No bigoted/raciest/sexist jokes/sarcasm" As many jokes and sarcastic remarks can be fun for all and not abusive in the least. So instead of avoiding all jokes/sarcasm we should avoid the harmful kind. I don't know about you but I don't want to participate in a chat that is dryer than the prohibition. That was a joke (though not the best one I have made). It hurts no one it is not targeted at a person but serves to point out that under this rule the chat would be rather boring and people would eventually leave.

I am not sure if the For more, see our [Code of Conduct](LINK). link in this document is meant to be broken at the moment as I was wanting to read up on the full post and not just the TL;DR. It is not a big deal but wanted to point it out just in case it needed to actually be a valid link.

I have some doubts and concerns regarding Chat TL;DR.

I agree with Tim's answer about using feedback word heavily in the document.

Chat TL;DR:

Be generous in both giving and accepting feedback. Feedback is a healthy part of our culture. Good feedback is kind, respectful, clear and constructive. Be open to receiving feedback.

I understand feedback when it's used in the context of Q&A. But I don't know what kind of feedback do we get on Chat? I thought it is for discussion about the main & meta sites but in a bit informal way. I mostly visit chat for having fun time and get refreshed from meta discussions and main site question and answers.

Be kind. Be polite and friendly with others. Avoid jokes and sarcasm -- tone is hard to decipher online. If a situation makes it hard to act kindly, stop engaging and move on.

I can understand about sarcasm which might hurt users in some situations. But what about jokes? There are thousands of jokes shared between users. There are chat rooms dedicated for funny gifs. So, is saying to avoid jokes a barrier for having fun? I think this would not give a very good result in bringing new users to chat. Users visiting chat may feel it is also a serious place like Meta or main. In reality, they are quite opposite. People are fun loving and jovial. Asking them to be careful while being sarcastic is fine (which will be done by moderators anyway) but adding a line to avoid sarcasm and jokes in a policy which all should be bound could bring a hesitation in new users.

Our chat rooms are bit different than other platforms. This already creates some confusion when used for the first time. Using misleading info (about avoiding jokes and sarcasm) and serious guidelines could make the chat experience bad. The wording can be improved in this section.

Unacceptable Behavior

For the third bullet point, how about...

No bigotry. We don’t tolerate any language meant to offend or alienate people based on things such as race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

This includes three changes:

1. "Meant to offend or alienate" would replace the vague and open-ended "Likely to offend or alienate."

It's often hard for well-meaning and respectful individuals to predict what is "likely" to offend or alienate, especially when dealing with different cultures from around the world. People should be careful -- but they shouldn't be treated like bigots if they make an honest mistake.

2. "When in doubt, just don't" would be removed.

Guidelines like "When in doubt, just don't" are for people who don't mean harm, but are just not being careful enough. That's different from actual bigotry, which surely belongs under Unacceptable Behavior.

3. "Things such as" would substitute for "and those are just a few examples."

Simpler, more succinct, and more readable.

And I think the phrasing "things such as race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion" is just flexible enough to include types of bigotry not on the list, yet limited enough so people cannot stretch it to cover whatever they want.

I may have missed it, but an improvement could be to add a link to help/how-to-ask in the first sentence, something like:

If you’re here to get help, make it as easy as possible for others to help you. See $SiteHowToAsk$ for advice.