>This is just an observation: there are multiple species of attention-seeking internet troll who want very, very much for you to treat their absurd behavior "on a case by case basis."
In my experience the exact opposite is true. Most trolls want to argue the finer language of a CoC, and waste everyone's time in a pseudo-legal battle.
"Case-by-case" doesn't mean you have to spend a lot of time. It just means you're asking yourself "is this person being disruptive" as opposed to being compelled to argue technicalities in order to justify your actions as a moderator.
I'm talking beyond my expertise here - I've never been involved in a CoC argument, but I have witnessed a lot of trolling - but it seems to me like the same guy who would be happy to argue endlessly about the trouble he's caused and the punishment or censorship that's being meted out on a case by case basis would also be happy to argue endlessly about a code of conduct and its application. Just please pay attention to him!
I sort of suspect the same applies to the third parties who like to whinge about how moderation is being done.
> "Case-by-case" doesn't mean you have to spend a lot of time. It just means you're asking yourself "is this person being disruptive" as opposed to being compelled to argue technicalities in order to justify your actions as a moderator.
Even I have seen the "you handled this one way last month, why are you treating this guy differently today?" arguments. I imagine if you're willing to discuss your decisions at all, you're going to be forced to argue technicalities, if you're infested by the kind of people who like to argue technicalities.
>I'm talking beyond my expertise here - I've never been involved in a CoC argument, but I have witnessed a lot of trolling
If by "argument" you mean "flame-war", then I suppose I'm right there with you. I've seen many, but participated in zero.
Still, I think I've observed some regularities. One such regularity is that flame-wars and CoC-trolling almost always take place in communities that treat their CoCs as some sort of constitution, and believe these conflicts should be resolved in a simili-court-of-law.
This is why I continue to oppose CoCs on the grounds that they're ideological tools, in practice. In my estimation, the whole point of pushing CoCs on open source projects is to get them to think in terms of legal process, at which point they can be harassed into behaving a certain way. This is all done on the false premise that internet communities should be run like first-world democracies.
>Even I have seen the "you handled this one way last month, why are you treating this guy differently today?" arguments.
>I imagine if you're willing to discuss your decisions at all, you're going to be forced to argue technicalities.
That's the brilliant thing - you're not forced to argue technicalities. In fact, you're not forced to give any explanation (though that's rarely the best policy, in practice). This isn't a court of law.
Anyway this is just ... like ... my opinion, man. Others can
disagree with me and still be reasonable. As I said in another comment, I don't run any popular OSS communities, but if I do, I don't think I'll use a CoC. And I don't think that will prevent me from enforcing good behavior.
(P.S.: I've just reread this comment and it struck me as a bit abrasive and argumentative. I've made a few changes, but please be assured of my courteous intent!)
In my experience the exact opposite is true. Most trolls want to argue the finer language of a CoC, and waste everyone's time in a pseudo-legal battle.
"Case-by-case" doesn't mean you have to spend a lot of time. It just means you're asking yourself "is this person being disruptive" as opposed to being compelled to argue technicalities in order to justify your actions as a moderator.