We have put a first draft (well, first public draft, it's been drafted a few times among ourselves) of a Code of Conduct, including proposed sanctions and appeals process, for Wondercafe 2. There will not be a vote on it at this time. We are merely putting it out for discussion so you can have at it and propose changes, alternatives, new ideas, etc. If you think you can do it better, put your idea up on your blog and link to it from the thread. If you just want to change a clause or section, put your proposed change up in the thread. Nothing is cast in stone yet. What we want is your input on this code.
After this discussion, we will wait until the moderators are nominated and chosen and we will have a more specific discussion of it from a moderation standpoint with them, then bring a final draft back for a final public discussion and vote.
One thing we would ask is that, while the discussion can be a bit more freewheeling here than on other WC2 threads, we stay focussed on things like what rules we want, how we want them enforced, and such. Financial issues, governance issues, technical questions (other than related to moderation) should be in other threads.
For comparison, the current Guidelines of Conduct for this site:
http://www.wondercafe.ca/guidelines
Mendalla has copies of the guidelines/rules from other sites he is on as well if people wish to see them.
Wondercafe2 Admins: Mendalla, Pinga, chansen
© WonderCafe. All Rights Reserved
Brought to you by the people of The United Church of Canada
Opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of WonderCafe or The United Church of Canada
Comments
Tabitha
Posted on: 05/13/2014 21:09
Joesph Smith WAS a con artist!
Saul_now_Paul
Posted on: 05/13/2014 21:11
incoming Tabitha ban!
Saul_now_Paul
Posted on: 05/13/2014 21:13
Does Tabithaban sound sort of Muslim?
incoming SnP ban!
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 05/13/2014 21:34
All religious perspectives will, of course, be tolerated and people will be encouraged to express their beliefs openly and to ask questions of each other about their beliefs. It should be just as tolerant as the current WC, hopefully even more so.
Mendalla
And what if a person expresses their religious belief that homosexual behaviour is shameful, or that women should not be in church leadership. Will they be encouraged to express their belief openly, or will such views quickly be labeled as hate speech?
I'm exceptionally eager to have you express your view that your religious conviction trumps the happiness of others. I will always argue that a Christian who wants to argue against homsexual sex and gay marriage be allowed to do so.
Not that you actually believe it, Jae, but I'm happy to play along.
Not that I believe it? Who said anything about me? I was asking a hypothetical question.
Pinga
Posted on: 05/13/2014 22:10
Code of conduct should be intentionally grey.
There will always be challenges regarding interpretation. The more you attempt to refine those rules the more challenges there will be.
You either trust the folks who understand the intent of the space, or you do not.
carolla
Posted on: 05/13/2014 22:12
It depends on how they express it. If you direct it at a member as a way of denigrating them or what they are saying, expect to be sanctioned (as I expressed above) for a personal attack. If you are expressing an opinion on an issue, we should be letting it stand and have the community deal with it in the discussion. Those views are still generally not regarded as hate speech in a legal sense.
This is quite clear and fair I think Mendalla.
As people comment - it's also important to remember context - mods are not going to be searching out infractions - I think the community will deal with most such issues as we do now. But there does need to be some written standard (as there is now, here) to deal with those who go beyond common decency and to evaluate reported posts.
Alex
Posted on: 05/13/2014 22:58
Here's a question: How much are we going to care about the feelings of deities, messiahs and prophets? Arguments that God is an ethnic cleanser, for example, or blaspeming the Holy Spirit, calling Joseph Smith a con artist, or images of Muhammad? With us no longer owned by a denomination, how does that change things?
I think because of the fact that WC2 is not owned by a church, it can be more tolerant of things that insult specific religions. It was bad form for people on WC to do so, because it would seem as the UCC was hosting an attack. Many say my thread on The Fall of Pope as an attack on the RC church, howevr WC saw that it was a discussion about the ongoing split in the RC church and the implications of the coverup of the sex abuse scandal, and how it affect the Papacy.
I think we have host discussions about the Mormons and other churches that were attacks, howevr becasue they were followed up by posts that explain or defended those churches, it was not needed to delete the posts
Agaain context is evrything. And a few anti muslims posts are OK, as again the present a format to talk about issues. For eample during the Draw Mohammed day it would have been Ok to post a picture, as it was in the news, however if we have a poster or a group of them that does it ad nauseum, it makes the site an unwelecoming place and it's just plain ugly. However hundreds of posts over years and with links to neo nazi groups that call for violence and present inaccurate information shoul not be allowed. HOw
Alex
Posted on: 05/13/2014 22:53
I also second Pinga post. Howevr I would like to have admin explain through email on in a forum, why posts are deleted. LAst week I posted a bad joke, that talked about Rob Ford's potential sex tape. Using metaphors that used plain langugae to describe sex acts. So I assumed it was banned as being vulger, but I am not sure as I used everyday language that is not consider obscene, even if it was a metaphor for a sex act that has been talked about before on WC using other words.
I suspect my post seemed vulger, so I would have appreciated knowing why..
chansen
Posted on: 05/13/2014 23:39
Alex, that's an excellent point and one that I completely forgot about. Mods should never just delete a post with no placeholder there explaining why, or if it's just one word, they should remove the word with some note it its place. Disappearing posts is incredibly bad form on the part of the mod, and it's one of the reasons I'm happy we're starting WC2.
Mendalla
Posted on: 05/14/2014 08:37
That's why I put that in the mod processes. It's how almost every other board I'm on handles it and I like it that way. rpg.net also has a forum just for announcements about sanctioning of posters (save for spammer accounts that aren't worth the effort), which I think is what Alex is getting at. I hope we won's have enough to justify a whole forum just for it.
Mendalla
chansen
Posted on: 05/14/2014 10:21
Not that I believe it? Who said anything about me? I was asking a hypothetical question.
Point taken. It is the sort of thing you do, however.
chansen
Posted on: 05/14/2014 10:26
Joesph Smith WAS a con artist!
Tell that to a Mormon.
The point is, I think it's important to be able to criticize deities, messiahs and prophets, and because I've seen people here try to equate criticizing biblical characters with a personal attack on a real person, I'm trying to make sure no one expects they will be.
Mendalla
Posted on: 05/14/2014 10:40
The point is, I think it's important to be able to criticize deities, messiahs and prophets, and because I've seen people here try to equate criticizing biblical characters with a personal attack on a real person, I'm trying to make sure no one expects they will be.
Personal attacks should really be limited to board members and related for the most part. I have no problem with someone calling Harper (or Trudeau or Mulcair or Paris Hilton) an idiot. Ditto any celebrity or public figure, including religious ones. I do have a problem with someone calling another board member an idiot. That would be a warning for sure.
Also, criticism =/= personal attack. If I say something about a person's opinion, even tear it thoroughly to shreds, without reflecting that back on the person (e.g. "only an idiot would hold this opinion" type of statements) then it is not a PA no matter how viciously I savage that opinion.
Mendalla
PS. Do be careful about potentially libelous statements, though, where public figures are concerned. You never know whose lawyer may be reading the board.
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 16:51
If you reply to someone's posted opinion and say "only an idiot would hold this opinion", that's a personal attack.
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 05/14/2014 16:54
Mendalla
Posted on: 05/14/2014 16:58
To be clear, this is what my post is meant to say, though my wording is rather convoluted. You can criticize the opinion all you like but avoid attacking the person was the gist of it.
Mendalla
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 17:13
Let's say a person posts "I believe xyz", and a few posts down someone says "people who believe xyz are idiots". That may not be a direct personal attack but could be experienced like one all the same. I propose we, not ban, but ask people not to use or use very sparingly the word "idiot". It's a cruel word and usually said in haste or to be hurtful. It's not very respectful. How much harder is it to say "xyz opinion makes no sense to me or I disagree with it because___"?
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 17:15
Words like idiot and respectful conversation don't go together.
chansen
Posted on: 05/14/2014 17:30
Occasionally, shoes fit. I use "idiot" because it's not really a big deal to me - I call myself an "idiot" when I forget my phone and have to go back home to get it, for example.
I can, however, not call anyone here by that word, if it's important. I do think that God is an idiot, and I base that only partly on the story in Genesis where God tried to kill ducks with water.
If I can't call God an idiot, then yes, that's a problem.
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 05/14/2014 17:40
I do think that God is an idiot, and I base that only partly on the story in Genesis where God tried to kill ducks with water.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080325063302AASgMSA
chansen
Posted on: 05/14/2014 17:46
If only ducks had some mechanism to keep their bodies above the water in a flood...
Look, the point is there is a lot of stupid stuff in religion, and we should, with reasons given, be allowed to point them out.
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 17:46
You shouldn't call yourself an idiot for forgetting your phone. "Oops, crap I forgot my phone" or something to that effect, is what I do. I might use the "s" word. Actually, usually I can't find it in my own purse- the bottomless pit. In which case I tell myself to "get my 's' together and organize my purse." it makes me disorganized, but not an idiot.
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 05/14/2014 17:48
If only ducks had some mechanism to keep their bodies above the water in a flood...
God created them with the ability to normally stay well afloat.
Just so long as we can point out why we think choosing not to believe is foolish.
chansen
Posted on: 05/14/2014 18:05
I, personally, welcome those attempts. I have no problem with people criticizing atheism or anti-theism. Call it "stupid" if you want - I don't get hung up on language.
Pinga
Posted on: 05/14/2014 18:05
Again, it goes to intent.
I can say "that was idiotic".
I can say " He is being a twit."
I can write 10 sentences that ultimately say, though never use the words, " she is being a twit"
Ultimately, the same thing is being said.
If it is out of line, then the moderator is appropriate to call it if you wish.
chemgal
Posted on: 05/14/2014 18:10
How about:
Respect the privacy of others by not posting personal information or images outside the public domain of another person without their consent.
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 18:35
Again, it goes to intent.
I can say "that was idiotic".
I can say " He is being a twit."
I can write 10 sentences that ultimately say, though never use the words, " she is being a twit"
Ultimately, the same thing is being said.
If it is out of line, then the moderator is appropriate to call it if you wish.
You're right. We have that choice. It's free speech. I guess I find "idiot" and "idiotic" too strong, mean, to use in everyday criticism. It gets my defenses right up. It reflects a certain meanness that comes across to readers- is unwelcoming, even if not intended that way. I would never, ever, call someone close to me an "idiot". My husband would be hurt by such words for example- even if I'm justifiably annoyed - they are strong and reserved for the worst of examples. "Dork" or "dorky" implies a sense of humour about it. Overall, though, it's better to explain why one disagrees with a certain idea or behaviour or constructively suggest alternative ways of looking at or doing something, rather than crush people along with their ideas, with hard words.
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 18:41
Maybe that doesn't fall into code of conduct but it's relevant to creating an open environment for everyone. "idiot" dampens the spirit of open discussion, IMO. Scares off sensitive people- something to be aware of, that's all.
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 18:59
I have a disability. I'd rather be called 'crippled' directly, than be called an 'idiot' or my ideas be called 'idiotic'. That's how strongly I feel about it. There are people with brain injuries, people with low IQs and even people who been endoctrinated into unhealthy belief systems, or make mistakes, who are valuable people- that's why the word 'idiot' gets my back up. Up to people to consider that for themselves, though. Enough said. Sorry.
seeler
Posted on: 05/14/2014 20:15
Name calling is name calling. I personally don't think idiot is any more offensive than dork. Both are hurtful. So is calling someone a liar. I don't think name-calling adds anything to a discussion.
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 20:57
Seeler, I don't often use the word "dork" either but these days it implies a sense of humour- it sounds funny. When I was a kid my dad told me it's a swear word- a crude four letter word. Maybe it was when he was young but I never knew it to be. It didn't mean what he thought it meant when he heard me say it. It's similar to "joker", "goof ball", "butter fingers" or "absent minded professor". Meant lightheartedly. When I say it, I'm laughing and the person I'm saying it to is laughing with me at one or the other of our silliness. It's not hurtful in that context. It's okay to have a sense of humour and not take ourselves too seriously. At one time "geek" and "nerd" were insults. Not so much anymore. Idiot is way more insulting, still. It's used to denegrate. It's a strong word that encompasses people merely making mistakes, as well as people with low IQs and brain injuries (that's where the word comes from), therefore, I think it's mean spirited. But, you're right. Name calling is name calling and it's not a constructive or mature way to address a disagreement. Words like that shouldn't be banned, just pointing it out.
crazyheart
Posted on: 05/14/2014 21:38
This is gettin scary if we have to watch every word so that WC2 police don't get us. This kind of stuff can go too far.
Mendalla
Posted on: 05/14/2014 21:49
This is gettin scary if we have to watch every word so that WC2 police don't get us. This kind of stuff can go too far.
Moderation is often about hitting a balance between allowing people to speak as freely as possible and making sure that exertion of that right by some does not infringe on that right of others. The appeals process and the presence of multiple mods (meaning multiple eyes and opinions) is designed to deal with the fact that we won't always get it perfect.
Mendalla
chansen
Posted on: 05/14/2014 21:51
This is gettin scary if we have to watch every word so that WC2 police don't get us. This kind of stuff can go too far.
Exactly. If something is uncalled for, it will backfire. Based on what we have here at WC1, mods at WC2 should be bored out of their skulls, not busy warning and suspending people.
crazyheart
Posted on: 05/14/2014 22:23
I agree, Chansen
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 22:39
I also agree, CH. censorship and over policing aren't cool. But we also want to create an environment that says, "join us", not "we're disagreeable jerks. Deal with it, or go away." (we being the site overall). In some ways, WC is a tough place in that regard (and I'm not saying I'm perfect.), in other ways it's great. I don't know how that can be built into the code of conduct, though. It's just in good faith.
Pinga
Posted on: 05/14/2014 22:37
yup, that is my point. It may happen, it will reflect on the person saying. There are times it is appropriate.
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 22:40
yup, that is my point. It may happen, it will reflect on the person saying. There are times it is appropriate.
Who were you responding to?
Pinga
Posted on: 05/14/2014 22:41
For example, I normally have good phone etiquette.. I once hung up, loudly, on my manager. It was appropriate. They knew it. I knew it. it resolved an issue that needed to be made loud & clear.
It is all about what is right for a time/place/thread
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 22:48
See, hanging up loudly isn't appropriate in my mind. I've done it. I've been inappropriate. But it was a poor way of dealing with someone and not something I'm okay with myself doing. "I can't talk about this. I need to go. I'm saying goodbye now. We can have this conversation when we've both cooled down." , or "i'm too upset to talk about this now." would have been appropriate.
Pinga
Posted on: 05/14/2014 22:49
Kimmio, you presume those situations had not occurred or standards of professional conversation had not occurred. Yuo also presume the behaviour of the other person.
My point is, there are times when what appears to be rude is absolutely the right action.
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 22:50
Different strokes. Some people will view what is and isn't appropriate differently, I guess.
carolla
Posted on: 05/14/2014 22:51
... Personal attacks should really be limited to board members and related for the most part. ...
This statement made me laugh Mendalla! I understand what you meant, but it just struck me funny
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 22:51
I presumed you hung up loudly on someone. That's it. That's all you told me.
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 22:54
... Personal attacks should really be limited to board members and related for the most part. ...
This statement made me laugh Mendalla! I understand what you meant, but it just struck me funny
It sounds like only board members should be allowed to attack each other. A bit like Parliament. ;)
Pinga
Posted on: 05/14/2014 22:55
Then, imagine the various scenarios that could cause someone to make that choice, and why it would be appropriate.
The loudly is because a quiet hangup woud not be heard.
The hangup is because the other natural comments were not heard.
The hangup is because the swearing is so bad, the fist banging is so aggressive, the screaming is so loud....and that the person has been out of control long enough it is not good for them and no end is in sight.
There are good reasons to take an action other than what would normally be expected. My point is, moderators, like others, need to look at the whole situation, not the isolated word or sentence.
A good moderator, like a good parent, manager, employee, understands situational rules
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/14/2014 23:19
I agree. Just wondering why a "I can't listen to your swearing. I'm saying goodbye. Click." wasn't as good as a loud hang-up, though?
carolla
Posted on: 05/14/2014 23:20
A good moderator, like a good parent, manager, employee, understands situational rules
For sure pinga - the code of conduct represents a standard against which to evaluate, and will, IMO anyway, not be an absolute dictum in most cases. I imagine good/effective moderators need to have maturity and a reasoned approach by which to understand context. We have a good number of those people here in WC - I trust they will guide us fairly.
carolla
Posted on: 05/14/2014 23:21
Kimmio - your comments are going off topic to this thread, IMO.
Kimmio
Posted on: 05/15/2014 00:51
Sort of off topic- just getting to the bottom of why it's okay to deal with disagreement aggressively, with aggressive language or whatever. Whether the initiator or the moderator. That's a conduct question. I agree that problems will come up and they need to be dealt with.
Add:.I guess I'm talking about a general tone / attitude, if we all keep in mind (including me) it might help lessen conduct problems. It can't be 'legislated' though. It just has to be felt.