That's exactly the reason why I put up CoCs for example - we define what is inacceptable in a certain space and put it in clear writing to avoid gaming. It binds the organizers as much as the attendees. It cuts out the play. For example, CoCs for dating environments look very differently then those for confs. (did you know there are cuddling meetups and they have very strict rules to ensure people feel comfortable?)

There are many abusers that are quite good at the "social game" you describe, by exploiting insecurities about rules, especially in their absence. Saying they are "bad at the game" is actually one of the standard plays (and terribly harmful to those that are _actually_ "bad at the game").

The solution is not "there are no rules", but "we have rules here and others here". We need more spaces with with different sets of rules, where everyone can nerd out in their fashion, not chaos.

The problem about society is that you can't cut out social interaction from humans. Any attempt to do so is doomed in my opinion.

The way I see it, any space with written rules (e.g. CoCs) are essentially spaces with restrictions that dilute cultures so that several cultures with a narrow shared interest can mingle productively. Codes of Conduct are essentially anti-cultural for the sake of achieving collaboration between cultures that share a common interest. This isn't a bad thing. It's certainly productive in ways and produces something of value, but it is necessarily limiting of cultures (and sub-cultures).

The moment you're thinking in dichotomous terms like "the organizers" and "the attendees", you're not talking about culture. The moment you cut out the play, you're not talking about culture. Every culture has varying degrees of play (that go well beyond the amount of play allowed by any CoC I've seen), and that play is acceptable but only known to members of whatever in-group is in question. Introducing rules that eliminate the play inherent in cultures is okay when you do so for the purpose of letting members of disparate cultures to interact safely with each other. The big concern hackers have and that the author of the article we're discussing is getting at, is that the values from which CoCs are fashioned are fine within the confines of the events where they are enforced, but when those values are foisted upon every hacker and nerd sub-culture (including the abrasive ones) and attempts to squelch the diversity of cultures, then it no longer represents intersectionality inclusive of weirdos.

    The problem about society is that you can't cut out social
    interaction from humans. Any attempt to do so is doomed in
    my opinion.

Exactly. CoCs cut out many types of interaction by humans. That's okay and that's good. The problem is when the values that led to those CoCs are indiscriminately applied to everyone that participated in an event even when they no longer are participating in an event. One sub-culture might be abrasive. It's good that that abrasiveness is not allowed in shared spaces like meetups and conferences, since it allows those without the capacity to handle abrasiveness to participate. It ceases to be good when people try to enforce those values against people even outside venues that proscribe CoCs.

    What you want is an abrasive culture and I oppose that.

It's fine to oppose when such opposition is limited to venues like meetups and conferences, but universal opposition applied at all times and all places, is inherently not inclusive of abrasive people.

highly relevant: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2

> The moment you're thinking in dichotomous terms like "the organizers" and "the attendees"

Hold it right there. I run the space, I raise the money, I sign the contracts, I'm can be held responsible if someone misbehaves (morally and legally) and I'm the person that doesn't watch the talks, but uses them as a time where they can actually make sure that the next person has their time and the tables are clean?

And "organizer" and "attendee" is a dichotomy? Both are roles and forcibly assuming that everyone plays the same role is harmful.

The idea is that you can do whatever you want at a conference you run...and so can I.

I think that CoCs are not bad, but the question asked by the article or rather the problem found is: Who writes the CoCs? Who is "we"? My understanding of the article is that there's a "weirdo nerd" group, which has their CoCs. These are rather loosely defined (the weirdos like it this way) and build the status quo (because the weirdos were there first, they defined the space, they wrote the first CoC). Now, various groups of newcomers - all better versed in the social game than the original CoC authors - join this space and start a "war of CoCs". Every new subgroup says "We and ONLY WE have the right to push CoCs", while the next subgroup cries foul, because in their world only THEY are the final arbiters of the CoCs. That's why we are both right on the point of "good at the game": Some groups use the "we are bad at the game, so don't bother us" tactic and try to win the war that way. Another group is more direct and uses the "we are good at the game, so listen to us" tactic, another group uses a third tactic. All abuse their skills for their own purposes. But that is not the point.

The point is: In the end none of these group has a right to redefine the CoCs. They've joined a space which has been built by the "weirdo nerds" for their purposes and has the CoCs those deemed fair. Joining this space was no problem, the "weirdo nerds" welcomed them (or didn't bother to say: GO AWAY, both interpretations are acceptable), but now they try to dominate this space by abusing their skills in the "game of social skills" and rewrite the spaces CoC to one they like more and that's neither fair nor right.

The answer to this is really simple: the people running the space. Run you own space, have your own CoC. Done.

If you can't get enough people to stand up and say "we're running a conference for tough as nails abrasive people, make sure you come in armored clothing", that might be a description of a problem.