> to weaken the specificity and balance of the CoC.

This is a feature, not a bug. When the rules are clear and specific, they can be enforced fairly. When they're vague and unclear, then the only consistent principle is that the people who "enforce" the "rules" can do whatever they want and you have no recourse or due process.

I don't know why you've been downvoted, but anyone that has seen how laws have been selectively enforced since whenever should be able to easily see how this is the case as well. It's the "everyone is guilty of breaking some law" principle, but applied to what is currently considered fashionable good behavior. It's a different kind of slippery slope and we'll know it when the wrong kind of people get into positions where they can enforce these to suit their needs rather than protecting marginalized communities.

But speaking out against that will be seen as the same thing as an attack on marginalized, so most folks will either be quiet or move on, and these power-hungry folks will get to keep their fiefdoms.

I absolutely agree about both the impetus and the danger of this currently prevailing viewpoint.

I will speak to the motivation however, because I'm a reconcillatory kind of person most of the time, and unlike this CoC I do believe intent is important.

I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good, and I believe their adoption is very very bad because those adopting them are blindsided.

Because the people writing them are not lawyers, and are not expecting them to be used as laws to be enforced, but as "good feeling reinforcers". Effectively, corporate virtue signalling (and, in some cases probably also personal virtue signalling - with all the negative connotations that brings).

The fact is, when you introduce a set of rules, you have to expect those rules to be interpreted by people with some extreme biases, and ensure that the wording produces a fair outcome regardless. It doesn't matter whether you call these rules "guidelines", or a "code", or even a "statement of intent". They will be used as rules, and if they aren't, then what is the point of writing them?

> I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good

Although that same COC says intend doesn't matter in many cases.

Selective enforcement is exactly proof that the above comment is constructing an irrelevant problem. When the rulers don't like the rules, and there is no mechanism to force them, the rulers simply ignore the rules - they don't need to change the rules.

If you have bad rulers and no mechanism to change them, all giving them a perfect rule book to enforce will not produce better outcomes - they will selectively apply and interpret the rules as they want.

At best, a good set of rules will make it more obvious that the rulers are acting in bad faith. But the rules themselves can't compel the rulers - only other people can.

The difference is that being maximally charitable is the right way to approach normal communication from normal people, but the people who write “CoCs” are known bad actors. You don’t assume good faith from the person that’s assaulting you.

FYI: basilgohar's comment was accurate when it was written, since my comment was downvoted at first, but has since been upvoted again.

Sadly true. But I reluctantly stop short of attributing that nasty side-effect as a defining goal of the CoC movement, because - you know - I always try to assume good intentions :)

(Though, if you feel Hanlon's razor is a better motivator for you, I won't judge)

Rules can be enforced however fairly or not the rulers want. Better rules don't make for better rulers - at best, they make it more obvious when a ruler is not being fair.

Maybe, but I think there are social contracts that you are overlooking. If I write a rule, and then I violate a rule (or refuse to censure someone for violating a rule) then I can be rightly accused of hypocrisy.

People believe themselves to be within a certain margin of "good people", and having incontrovertible proof of being "The Biggest Hypocrite" makes them uncomfortable.

There are of course those who don't feel that discomfort; there are even those that commit victim-filled crimes without remorse. Often, there are external forces we can lean on to bring those people into line or out of society - and agreed, in the case of Open Source Software communities, those external forces don't always exist or are not reliable for regulating something as insignificant as moderation policies on a mailing list.

There are also those that would leverage that discomfort for their own immoral benefit, and bad rules are equally good enablers of that kind of person.

But I don't think it's fair to say that the quality of rules is meaningless - if there is any level of accountability in the sub-community of moderators (or in the community as a whole), good fair and enforceable rules have power.

Why is there a protected party? Why can't everyone be protected only a few?

This statement is a borderline hate crime in the US.

This is a complicated question, and for those new to this kind of discussion, it deserves a complicated answer. This is not that answer, but here are some thoughts:

a) We are a reactionary species, unfortunately. And that served us well when the burning questions of the day were "Tiger friend? [BITE] No, tiger never friend" but less so when discussing the social weight felt by minority and historically persecuted groups, the benefits and pitfalls of hyper-vocal "allies" and the social disenfranchisement felt by potential allies bitten by persecutions that they are told do not exist.

b) We are a reductionist species, unfortunately. That helps us when understanding the complexities of mathematical infinities and physics and the workings of the human central nervous system, because - between similarly educated peers - a scientific community can abstract away the irrelevent bits and share groundbreaking research outcomes with relative ease. But when "normals" try to enter the discussion, they mistake the simplified abstract descriptions for a simple concept and end up contributing nonesense or reporting falsehoods to the rest of the world (e.g. are we moments away from fusion generators? Are we on the cusp of ignition? No, no we're not).

And so, when discussions take place about the relative protections and privileges inherent with social majority groups and justify the particular resource expenditure on helping to rebalance centuries of systemic prejudices, people will misread what they understand of the zeitgeist and say "Your social privilege, as defined by your [race / gender / sexuality / ability / age / etc] means that your feelings need no consideration"

c) We are a self-absorbed species, unfortunately. It contributes to our survival and that of our dependants to ensure that we take the resources we need so that we are in a position to then help the rest of our clan. Weirdly though, we also have faculties for patience and imagination. And so we are happy to imagine ourselves in the shoes of someone we consider as "sufficiently other" to the point where we will fight for them as if they are our own clan, which is in a way wonderful (not always - see "white saviourism") but it means that those similar enough to be relatable receive a negative consideration, being not different enough to be worth the emotional investment, but not similar enough that they are truly "in the same boat", though we feel like they are. For example, try to analyse your perceptions of the poor and homeless that live near you, compared to the poor and starving people from distant countries.

It just "feels different", right?

That "local mistrust" is just as much an undeserved prejudice as the fact that you probably imagined those "people from a distant country" with a particular skin colour.

And lastly:

d) Our emotions deceive us constantly. That small racism dig in part C - if that affected you (sorry!) might make you susceptible to further emotional manipulation, because (see A) we are a reactionary species, and so from there it's easy for someone to manipulate us to reduce (see B) the world into "overprivileged vs underprivileged" clans, take on the underprivileged as our own (see C) and thereby increase our prejudice under the guise of eliminating prejudice.

Then echo chambers, then reinforcement by media, friends, catchy superficial soundbites, our employment... and finally our own selves, because once you've declared your unwavering support for a vaguely positive cause, it's very hard to walk that back.

And convincing someone to reverse a commitment they have made that has superficially positive soundbites because they are taking a damaging approach is a lot harder than reversing a prejudice they fell into through normal upbringing.

Maybe, long-term, that isn't a problem. Over the generations, we'll react ourselves to a position where everyone is protected. Short-term though, we'll have to use our privilege to be a force for good in between protected factions.

It has been brought into conformance with the standards of corporate HR departments, whose job it is to shield the company from discrimination lawsuits, not really to foster a kinder community.

If there are any CoCs left that do not adopt these standards, they will be brought into conformance soon. Corporate sponsorship depends on it, and open source is nothing without corporate sponsorship.

What is a higher standard of behavior exactly? More formal? More informal? What goal does it have? Fundamental Christians have a pretty high standard for behavior, I doubt this is the goal.

This is an undefined spiral to infinity mainly relying on de jure expectations.

Sexism - the believe that on sex is supreme to the other is already redefined to mean anything suggestive.