Also, codifying "be nice" isn't so impossible. It's the basis of all laws. And laws are not programming languages. They are all subjective and open to interpretation. This doesn't make them useless.
Did you really just accuse me of bad faith for asking you for the most basic of discussion content? Asking someone to prove their stance is a negative, ever?
Is this a thing you'd accuse someone of in a face to face conversation?
Which, by the way, you did not do, which is why I asked for "concrete". A concrete example would be "This particular behavior in this particular community happened before the CoC was implemented, here's an example or two (link), the CoC addressed it in this way (link), and the negatve impacts you're worried about didn't manifest".
Just saying "Python and Pycon" doesn't even begin to provide enough context. The only Pycon example I can think of off the top of my head is the height of incivility: getting people fired for jokes.
Yes, there was a much-publicised donglegate in Pycon 2013. But there was also a waiting line for the women's bathroom in Pycon 2015. Have you seen a waiting line for the women's bathroom at any other tech conference? And guess what, both Adria Richards and the man whose name I can't find quickly via a Google search were there at Pycon 2015 and the CoC was updated to indicate how to better handle incidents.
Overall, Python has done a great work in being a friendlier place, and its insistence upon the code of conduct has in all probability helped.
...though what this has to do with people being jerks is unclear. Am I to understand the Pycon CoC addresses event coordination and venue selection? And there's a section in there about number of bathrooms? If so, now I definitely want a link, if not, I'm just grasping at straws admittedly, because I have no idea what your comment is supposed to be about otherwise.
But apparently, asking you to prove a statement is "sea lioning". Asking someone to uphold the most basic characteristic of discussion among intelligent people, the burden of proof, is now somehow seen as a thing to be avoided.
If we're going to talk about things on Hacker News, could they be please be done using the normal rules of debate/discussion instead of these bizzaro world ones?
Of course it's a self-reinforcing cycle because the conferences being hostile is clearly one thing that'd keep them out.
You:> Codes of conduct are not silliness. Almost everywhere that I have seen them implemented, I have seen a better atmosphere over that community.
This implies that you have examples from personal experience readily at hand.
He then said this:
Him:> I'm curious, could you give a concrete example of a thing that a CoC has improved without simultaneously causing implicit pressure on people to remain silent about bad ideas in a project?
You characterize this as:
You:> The sealioning is because you are requesting me to provide you with an extensive example that will satisfy your stringent needs and seem unwilling to do your own research. A more charitable approach would be to go and try to find examples on your own, explain what you looked for, and could not find. Instead, you are (in your eyes very politely) asking me to catalogue a comprehensive example that satisfies all of your bullet points to the letter.
What would be an acceptable way to you for someone to ask for you to share one of your examples?
The truth has absolutely nothing to fear from questioning.
This is almost certainly a reaction to Mozilla being attacked for the political/religious views of some of their contributors. The case of the CEO is the most well known (and granted a bit exceptional, so I won't consider it further), but due to the actual diversity of the Mozilla community people on both extremes of the relative spectrum spoke out and the CoC makes it clear when they can do so without retribution in the project, provided they don't use project resources to spread their opinion.
I think that's an example of a positive effect of a CoC.
Now, see, that is good (and frankly, surprisingly sensible given some of Mozilla's past behavior.) I'd be much less concerned about a code that spelled out things like that.
It's when CoC advocates strenuously fight against adding such terms that I get suspicious of their motives.
Nothing like that happened here.
In fact, you harmed any argument you were hoping to make by deploying jargon like this; the impression readers get is that you came to the thread loaded for bear with rhetorical tools to evade discussion.
I say this as someone who was also a bit irritated with the "codes of conduct are silliness" implication upthread.