Oh, I agree inasmuch as it helps for there to be standards; understood by the community, and consistently enforced.
For example, letting through some spam comments might be controversial. [Jury's still out on Fred's book mentions.]
But it's very easy to end up with a place where people feel threatened by the rules, just as they might by their lack. The more areas your policy impacts, the harder it is to police it consistently, especially over a large community. Meanwhile, a place with no rules, and no structures for the community to police itself, tends to devolve into warring factions.
It's crucial to understand that it's OK to have places where certain groups or individuals – perhaps even the majority – are uncomfortable. It's also OK to have "safe spaces" where comfort is the most important thing. Neither of these places has an inherent right to be the most popular place in a community – and frankly, neither of them are likely to be, because by definition they both appeal to extremists.
[It makes little sense to try to eliminate these kinds of social spaces; in almost all cases, the people who're using them were already in your community; and they won't just leave if the venue closes. They'll end up spending more time at the more moderate sites/events; probably the last thing you want if you'd like them to stay moderate and free of disputes. It's also likely that another such site/event will spring up to serve the market anyway. They're more a symptom then a cause; like furry cons were to the wider sci-fi community.]
Also worth discussing is the need to define what is not harassment; what is not intimidation. There has to be a clear understanding, at least on the staff side and ideally in general, of what is allowed. Otherwise, there will be people trying to use your policy to exclude individuals and groups they just don't agree with… while others are intimidated into not speaking or acting even if it would be allowed.
Several recent pieces have had a general thrust of "it's OK to make a minority unhappy if doing so benefits the majority". But that works both ways; it can also be right to say "no, that's not an offence, even if you're offended", or "no, that's not a threat, even if you feel threatened". If people say they're going to leave unless you change your community, be sure to keep the door open for them.
Oh, I agree inasmuch as it helps for there to be standards; understood by the community, and consistently enforced.
For example, letting through some spam comments might be controversial. [Jury's still out on Fred's book mentions.]
But it's very easy to end up with a place where people feel threatened by the rules, just as they might by their lack. The more areas your policy impacts, the harder it is to police it consistently, especially over a large community. Meanwhile, a place with no rules, and no structures for the community to police itself, tends to devolve into warring factions.
It's crucial to understand that it's OK to have places where certain groups or individuals – perhaps even the majority – are uncomfortable. It's also OK to have "safe spaces" where comfort is the most important thing. Neither of these places has an inherent right to be the most popular place in a community – and frankly, neither of them are likely to be, because by definition they both appeal to extremists.
[It makes little sense to try to eliminate these kinds of social spaces; in almost all cases, the people who're using them were already in your community; and they won't just leave if the venue closes. They'll end up spending more time at the more moderate sites/events; probably the last thing you want if you'd like them to stay moderate and free of disputes. It's also likely that another such site/event will spring up to serve the market anyway. They're more a symptom then a cause; like furry cons were to the wider sci-fi community.]
Also worth discussing is the need to define what is not harassment; what is not intimidation. There has to be a clear understanding, at least on the staff side and ideally in general, of what is allowed. Otherwise, there will be people trying to use your policy to exclude individuals and groups they just don't agree with… while others are intimidated into not speaking or acting even if it would be allowed.
Several recent pieces have had a general thrust of "it's OK to make a minority unhappy if doing so benefits the majority". But that works both ways; it can also be right to say "no, that's not an offence, even if you're offended", or "no, that's not a threat, even if you feel threatened". If people say they're going to leave unless you change your community, be sure to keep the door open for them.