With a code of conduct, there are clear, concise rules - expectations of members to adhere to such rules and to understand that violation of stated rules will result in the equally clear consequences, such as suspension, etc.

 

When what is acceptable, respectful conduct is not clear, and discretion and interpretation become part of a moderation process, problems will arise.   Personal attacks being the most common, as an example.

 

Perhaps the best way for WC2 to have a smooth mode of operation is to ensure that the rules are very clear, that moderators and admins stick to the rules, and that members understand that when a decision is made to enforce the rules, it is not through a discretionary or situational process.  Rather, there is proof that a rule, (or part of the Code of Conduct), has been transgressed (or broken).

 

Rules are clearly laidout, as are consequences.  Unacceptable behaviour, as set in rules, is not situational.  Nor does context matter if a person posts in a manner that is in direct contravention of a rule wilthin a code of conduct.  Rules are set and mutually agreed upon.  As are the consequences if one "breaks the rule". 

 

It might be best to establish rules and then enforce them as required.  Remove  the situational/context/interpretation what ifs.  That is how most businesses, schools, and institutions operate.

 

If a member joins WC2, agrees to its terms and agrees to a Code of Conduct, then when a violation occurs, the decision making process is already in place, and the consequences, already having been laid out and agreed upon, must be accepted.

 

This kind of clarity makes it easier for members, moderators and administrators moving into a WC2 forum.

Fair enough, but if they do that, it'll be no fun at all to be there and the discussions might be bland. Walking on egg shells for this group, that's a bit of a motley crew. Just sayin'. There has to be some discretion as to intent and some sense of humour and willingness to ignore the small stuff, while balancing the need to keep a welcoming and respectful tone about the place so as to encourage diverse membership and different points of view.

Like your comments, Redhead.

 

 

Redhead's probably right in that it would erase any doubt. I don't like it when we devolve into borderline personal attacks here and oneupsmanship (i've been guilty of it too- it happens a lot here- been spending time reading comments in British newspapers and I noticed the arguments are often so civil even when totally opposing) - nor do I want to be in a place that's ultra politically correct and ruled with an iron fist, though. Something in between.

There is no way I meant in my post that every time someone, in the heat of discussion, refers to someone as an idiot, a dork or a liar that they should be reported and disciplined.  That would interfer with the free flow of conversation.  But people should be aware that this type of remarks can be hurtful, and if they continuously address them to a particular individual, especially without adding much else to the conversation, they might be leaving themselves open for correction.  

 

So --- a grey area.

 

 

I hope the mods aren't going to be too over-zealous in the first few months on the new job (*ducks*).

I didn't think you meant that. I don't think so either. It just isn't pleasant- even a little intimidating to have such strong words flying around here at times. A grey area for sure- something to keep in mind when conversing, is all.

You'd make an excellent prison warden. You'd make a lousy forum moderator.

 

Redhead has some good ideas in there but I would caution against turning this into a "criminal code". It should be more of a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities with leeway for "judges" (eg. mods and admins) to interpret it in context. It is quite in line with how other boards operate and I see no reason why we should be different in this regard. In fact, by suggesting a specific schedule of sanctions as part of the code rather than making that a mod guideline, we are going close to redhead's idea than most sites do.

 

In the end, and maybe this should be said somewhere in the document, the goal should be a very lightly modded board where the goal of moderation is not applying sanctions but defusing problems before they get there. In a lot of cases, it should be enough for a mod to post in a problem thread with a warning to people that things are getting problematic with a link to the Code and not even give our any specific warnings to users. Perhaps we should add that to the sanctions, in fact.

 

"Moderators shall make every effort to defuse tense situations by posting a general warning on the thread in question before applying any sanctions to specific users." Or something like that.

 

Mendalla

 

I like that, Mendalla.

Agreeing upon respectful dialogue is responsible, considerate and thoughtful - that should be part of a Code of Conduct. 

 

  Suggesting that this conduct is restrictive simply means that people have to consider how they post - it does not mena that online discussions cannot be spirited, engaging, humourous, intriguing and genuine.  It does mean that personal attacks are unbecoming of the one who posts them, that the person receiving such a comment can very much feel attacked, hurt, and unwelcome, and that in most social ways, e.g. professional, social, and personal relationships, that kind of verbal behaviour is not received well (and not tolerated) - so how is it that online it would be acceptable?

 

Chansen, you read this:

"Community members will show respect for others - treating other members as you would want to be treated.  Express your opinions about another person’s ideas, not about them personally" 

 

And then explain what you posted about me personally, and not what I wrote about - which was a way for all to exist upon common, repsectful ground.

Precisely, redhead, and you would be within rights to report him for it under this code and I would hope that the mods would take it seriously. However, I would also hope that the mod action would be limited. To be honest, this is hardly the most egregious post I have ever seen on this count, even from chansen.

 

Mendalla

 

In person you can say things- a little bit of ribbing- with a wink and a nudge and a jovial tone of voice, and the other person knows you're joking. Emoticons or typed winks are good, but if they're not used a person could feel hurt.

"Active continuous history means that they have been posting at least monthly with no breaks in activity of more than a month and no suspensions.

These criteria are guidelines and Council may, at its discretion, nominate anyone that Council feels meets the necessary requirements of commitment to Wondercafe2 and skills required for the position.

Members who have been banned at any time may not serve until at least two years after they are allowed to return."

 

When I posted about  clear, concise rules within Code of Conduct, and that violations of stated rules would result in action, I refer to the above:  composed by WC2 admin, and ( I may be mistaken), but voted upon.  Therefore, there are understood consequences of actions that contravene and violate rules of conduct.

 

So, what conduct means banned?  How long is the ban?  Is there a difference between ban and suspension? 

 

So, consequences are in place.  Members will understand that, upon agreement in order to join WC2.

A smartass comment with a wink, is still a smartass comment.

 

A good joke without a lol is still a good joke.

 

I can think of posts which are cruel and intentionally hurtful that someone throws a wink after as if it is funny.

That, I can agree with.

 

redhead, you've been nothing but negative about this endeavour from the start, telling us know much work it will be to manage. Now you want a tightly controlled forum where mods have to follow strict rules. That's fine for a prison. It doesn't work for a community. Your instincts are perfect for running a prison, or a boot camp, or any regimented facility where strict adherence to rules is key. They are not conducive to running a public forum. That is not an meant as an insult - it is a simple observation. I apologize if it sounds insulting to you, but that's exactly how I see your preferred moderation approach.

 

 

While I appreciate everyone giving input I respect that the Moderators will be as uniquely individual as any poster/member is.

 

Those folk will have to translate the relatively static documentation forming Wondercafe2 into the highly kinetic world that the membership forms.  They will also be the folk who get dumped on when we are unhappy with the translation they provide.

 

Perhaps all of us are best served at this juncture by considering the guidelines and codes and examing how well we reflect those guidelines and codes in our posting practices.

 

If we manage to police ourselves we needn't worry about others having to police us.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

One question - who watches the watchers?

 

Given that Council is subject to approval by the community on an annual basis and the mods are part of Council, I'd say the community does. We just had this discussion and approved the relevant document.

 

Mendalla

 

 

A suspension is of limited duration, usually a few days to a week (see the Sanctions section of this document) and will come off automatically when that duration is up.

 

A ban is technically permanent but could be rescinded by Council on Appeal in which case an admin or mod would have to manually reinstate the user. It is an extreme measure that would require the user to have ignored three warnings and two suspensions so should be rare save for, of course, spammers or those posting illegal content.

 

Question: Did you actually read the document posted to Wondercafe Admin's blog? There is a whole section in there on sanctions.

 

Mendalla

 

Actually, I am presenting a very positive model:  everyone understands and knows how to post upon a topic.  Politically correct never hurts anyone, nor does eliminating abusive ad hominem.  Calling out that kind of writing does not, in any way, diminish or detract from good, homuorous,insightful, thoughtful, or meaningful discussion.

 

Rules are established; violation of said rules are meted out by consequences well defined - such as banning and suspendinding - those definitions would be well defined, and members, upon joining WC2 would be aware of these actions and consequences, and real, non-offensive discussions may ensue. Hence, Code of Conduct and an agreement of terms and conditions, within the right practices of a not for profit organisation.

 

Nothing I have stated is negative, or in any way incorrect.  Nor is it restrictive.  Simply, it is a reminder that twice removed communication (which is writing), should be at the very least considerate, and, when overtly aggressive aor openly an attack, it should be called out - if such rules are in place, then consequences apply.

 

It is not about iron-clad control; it is about mutual respect, common ground, caring for all involved and not being attacked,a and not attacking others.

Redhead, what do you think of wondercafe's current guidelines of conduct and the way modding is handled?

 

To me, it's more clear what happens if the rules are broken in WC2, and I've been fairly happy with how things are done here.  The biggest change I'll be happy to see is that real posts won't just disappear as if they were never there.  Spam - that works.  Other posts, I'd rather see some indicator that something was removed, it's easier to follow a discussion that way.

 

Yes, this is true. The question, redhead, is does the document presented do what you want and, if not, what changes would make it do so?

 

Mendalla

 

redhead, the picture you paint is of a tightly-adminned forum where anything outside the lines results in warning, suspensions, then bans. My point is that we should almost never have to go there. Think of it this way, who has been banned or suspended from here in the past year? Can you think of anyone? My ban was 4 years ago, and lasted hours, for posting stick figure drawings of a smiling prophet. Stephen Booth is banned. Sockpuppets have been banned. Is there anyone you can think of who has been suspended or banned for language or disrespectful conduct? Anyone who should have been?

 

In terms of Internet forums, this place is extremely polite already. This is not the wild west. And a moderator's best tools are between their ears, not on a page of rules.

 

 

 

• Violating any provision of the code – Warning issued by moderator
• Receiving 3 Warnings – 3 day suspension
• Offends again after suspension – 1 week suspension
• Any further offences after receiving the 1 week suspension shall result in the user being banned

Warnings are issued on the spot by the moderator investigating a breach of the Code of Conduct. Offensive language or other posted material that violates the Code shall be removed from the post at the same time with a note added in red text to show what was removed.

Suspensions or bans are issued by the investigating moderator after checking the user’s record and, if necessary, consulting with the other moderators.

Any behaviour or activity that violates the laws of the Dominion of Canada including, but not restricted to, hate speech, posting of child pornography or pirated material, uttering threats shall result in an immediate ban, deletion of the offending material, and possible forwarding of information to legal authorities.

Spammers and trolls shall be subject to immediate permanent bans.

 

Yes, I read this.

 

So how are the warnings issued? publicly or privately?

 

Bans are not difined in terms of time - yet there is a reference to time in that one who has been previously banned, may, after two years... - what does that mean?  Also, seems to be within the perview of mods.  Nor is there a clear structure in place; one mod may make the decision, or, if desired, consult other mods.

 

Who decides immediate permanent bans?

 

Yes, I read this.

 

Saw some issues with it - but only if community input is sought.  If these are decisions already made by the owners of WC2, then I understand completely that there is no discussion necessary, and that this decision making process is established and agreed upon by any who sign up to WC2.

 

Yes, I read it.

That happens I guess. Probably not meant to be 'cruel' but perhaps meant to be 'smartass'. I think there's a difference... What I'm saying is even a 'smartass' comment can often be taken in good humour between friends when you're smiling and laughing and the tone of voice is such that you know they mean no harm. I can think of a poster who- half the time they're taking the mick and people take it way too seriously- whereas in person, if they're a friend, you'd probably just roll your eyes and chuckle and get on with it when someone does that. Whereas here, it's practically pandemoneum. In person- there's smiling, laughing and tone of voice that all indicate that's it's meant to be taken lightly- at which point I might tell them they're being a goof, or vice versa, and it's all fine, nobody's hurt. Can't really do that online. Not as easy to gauge in print. Which is probably why we should try to be more kind online.

Warning is a private function that notifies the user and leaves a message on their profile that is visible to mods/admins. If the warning is re. content, then the content would be edited with a note from the mod explaining why so would be visible to the community. We haven't codified a method for announcing bans/suspensions but it could be done in the business forum or have  dedicated forum for such announcements.

 

Suspensions are defined in terms of a period of time, so I don't know what you're saying there. The first suspension is 3 days, the second is a week. A ban, as I said earlier, is what it says, you are banned from using the site. By definition, that is permanent but we could make that explicit. A ban could be lifted by Council (and I probably need to make that explicit) but there is no specific term in which that would happen automatically. It would likely happen by the user emailing the admin email address requesting a new appeal.

 

 

If we weren't open to input, this thread would be pointless. We started it precisely to get the community to review and give input into the code. I even suggested that you could write up your own alternative, post it to your blog, and post a link to it. And we are not the "owners", or at least we are trying not to be. That is why the Council and threads like this exist.

 

That said, this code is, as I already told you, pretty bog standard for web forums, if not a bit more detailed than some, so I recommend you look at the example I posted and others before suggesting anything. There is no need that I see for us to do anything differently than the dozens of other successful, long lasting forums out there.

 

Mendalla

 

 

 

Well back to the most famous ban from WC1:

 

One poster wrote all the following personal attacks gleaned from only two threads and there was a lot more:

 

 

See! Even Jesus is asking you to stop.

People like Stephen like to make an idol of the Bible, because it gives them a crutch for their pride.

He thinks he can save you, and if so, you might turn int a "true" christian. Who knows, if he teaches you well enough, you might even become a minister some day.....

Interesting how you express your love using the back of your hand like that. I wonder what Jesus thinks of the way you preofess his love with insults?

And you get today's circular logic award.

The "I know you are but what am I" defence really doesn't help the "Holy Prophet of God" persona you're trying to foist on us.

Not that anyone believes it anyways.

Fortunately such yeast, and the corruption therefrom, can be resisted, as evidenced by the fact that you have not been able to corrupt anyone here with your arrogance and pridefulness.

If you're going to use a cliche in a transparently lame attempt to prove you point by insulting someone else.... at least try to get the cliche right. 

/facepalm

Stephen has taken to replying to himself.  

Not surprised since it's obvious he thinks the only person smart enough and holy enough to have a conversation with, is himself.

Not the sharpest tool, and not even in the shed.

You are an annoyance, and a hindrance to the God you pretend to serve.

Why is it so hard for you to understand, SB, that you, and people like you are Satan's best tool?

You make a mockery of the idea of the "life changing power of Christ", because if you are what that power changes people into, nobody in their right mind would want it.

You preached at us in a vain attempt to elevate yourself and be admired for your supposed piety and godliness.

 

How many people have to tell you the same thing before you realize your posing and games aren't working? 

In the meantime, how many people will you drive away from Christ because you are so arrogant and prideful that you make Christianity look bad?

How much longer will you kick Jesus in the face with your attitude?

Why do you think people here keep telling your the same thing? Why do you think nobody takes you seriously? Why do you think people would just ratehr you'd go away?

Because of your Godliness? 

No. 

It's because you are a spoiled child who craves attention, and ties to get it any way he can, even if it means getting negative attention because he's a jerk.

You'd be doing Jesus a favor if you'd switch to another religion.... because you are certainly not doing Christ's work right now.

Don't know why you're even trying with him GordW, after all the shit he's thrown in your face.

 

 

 

 

I pointed out to the attacker:

 

 

My point of this thread is that Stephen Booth is hated on WC because he is a bible believing Christian. He quotes the words of Jesus Christ that happen to be inconvenient for a liberal church. People squirm and want him gone.

 

And xxxxx is the hero everybody loves. He does not mind breaking the rules of conduct and launches personal attack after personal attack (see above poem). He is loved because he says what everybody else wishes they could say.

 

And Stephen Booth is lynched by a kangaroo court for quoting scripture. There is a whole thread designed to attack Stephen – Admin rules it inappropriate – and yet at the end warns not the attackers, but the attacked. And then bans him. Come on, if that is not the funniest chain of events – I don’t know what is.

 

 

So now Stephen is an internet stalker, apparently...

 

 

It is my opinion that he was not treated fairly, but was discriminated against. And then the threads that reveal a bunch of regular posters acting like delinquent brats torturing a kitten in an alley disappear in the middle of the night.

Is this how WC2 is going to work?

 

 

So what is the timeline for banishment?  And how is that defined in Code of Conduct?  And how is discretion of mods difined?

 

 

Currently, I don't think there's a distinction between being banned and suspended, so it makes sense.  Once on the new site we might want to amend that to banned or suspended.

 

God

SnP, we aren't discussing Stephen Booth any more. That's been done to death, and we understand that you don't agree. He will not be welcome at WC2. He is aware of that.

And the FSM watches God, and, if necessary, disciplines God by tickling him with His noodly appendages.

 

Chemgal:  read what has been posted.  There is a distinct difference between suspended and banned.  The lack of term (timeline) is the concern around banned.

 

Certainly,  this question will be answered, since there has already been thought into allowing  banned members who  "may not serve until at least two years after they are allowed to return."

 

So how long are they banned, who lifts the ban?

 

 

 

There is and I did clarify for redhead and we will clarify in the document before the final draft comes to a vote (which won't be for a week or two). See my posts upthread for the difference.

 

Mendalla

 

Is there a distinction on wondercafe (the original?).  That's what I was referring to.

"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."

There will not be a vote on it at this time.

 

Why ask for input?

 

Why be concerned - decision is stated.  There will not be a vote at this time.

 

 

 

Only question is what sanction defines a ban?

Redhead, are you being difficult just for the sake of it?  I'm pretty sure this is going to work like everything else so far, we discuss it, changes are made and we vote on the REVISED draft.  There is no vote at this time, as input is considered to make changes to the document before voting.  Isn't that preferable?

Thanks, chemgal. That post means more coming from you than it does from me.

 

chemgal: answer this question:

 

"Members who have been banned at any time may not serve until at least two years after they are allowed to return."

 

So there are timelines for suspension.

 

What is the timeline for being banned, since banned members are clearly allowed to return... etc.

 

I am not being difficult - cannot help it if some rules are unclear and I point it out.

 

 

This is about what gets you kicked out!

 

Even Mendalla, who is one of the most fair and reasonable people here, says he is OK with proselytising as long as the message is not "Follow Jesus or go to hell."

 

There are different ways of wording it, but that is the bottom line.

 

Shouldn't it be stated plainly?

 

If you are going to preach Jesus - we don't want you?

Redhead, there's a thread, which I don't have handy, that gives the timeline for this. chemgal summed it up nicely. We are putting the first draft up for discussion, then will have a further discussion of the next draft once the moderators are chosen and have had a shot at it, then a vote. IOW, unlike the other documents, you are getting two shots at helping us with this one. So give us some concrete ideas to work with. I've already gleaned some possible clarifications based on your questions and ideas upthread so you're contributing whether you mean to or not.

 

As for "if you think you can do better" being defensive? No, it's not unless you choose to read it that way. It is a challenge, calling on the community to show us what they can do.  We don't want this to be a three-person show and if we did, we wouldn't bother with these threads. We wouldn't be setting up a Council on which we will be a minority, either. We would just put it online and invite people to come on over. Ask a few people to be mods and let things roll. But we are not doing it that way. We are giving the community a chance to participate in the creation of the new site.

 

Mendalla

 

 

 

Redhead, I have answered this question twice upthread and conceded it needs to be, and will be, addressed in the next draft. There, your input has been heard and will be used. Bans are permanent unless rescinded by Council.

 

Mendalla

 

Redhead, the difficult comment was about the lack of voting right now, you editted your post, I should have used the reply button.

 

This is the way I have viewed it, maybe Mendalla/Chansen can confirm/clarify:

• On WC there is no distinction between a ban/suspension
• To be a council memeber, one cannot have been banned in the past 2 years, on either WC OR WC2
• While on WC2, a ban is permanent, this has come up after we voted about who can be on council.  We might want to consider a similar restriction on someone who has been suspended on WC2, but I think that can wait for now. (ETA):  It's probably a good idea to see how the new site runs, it's possible we don't want suspended members prevented from being on council if it eliminates too many.
• (ETA): Mendalla has also pointed out that a banned member might be allowed to return.  They wouldn't be able to be on council for 2 years.

SnP, Stephen Booth derails forums, he appears incapable of conversation, he spams forums with unrelated scripture, and mostly, he obsessively targets people with emails and phone calls that are not only unsolicited, but also clearly unwelcome. He exhibits stalking behaviour, and has for years. The decision of the WC2 admin team is that he is not welcome at WC2. All this has been said before.

 

As for preaching that if you don't believe in or follow Jesus, you're going to hell, I'm personally fine with it. Doesn't bother me in the least, as an individual, or as a forum admin. It's a frivilous threat. I see more of the frivilous side, but others focus more on the threat. If we allow threats like that, what other threats are we going to allow? Just pointing out one possible line of reasoning there, not that I agree with it.

 

 

For the current WC, I am not sure. Aaron would have to speak to that. It is rarely done here in my experience. In fact, it happens so rarely that I don't think anyone likely to carry over to the new board would be affected.

 

The suspension restriction for Council is that they cannot have been suspended in the 12 months preceding their nomination. So the longest someone can be removed the pool of possible Council members by a suspension is a year.

 

And your last bullet is correct.

 

Mendalla

 

 

Actually, I'm even okay with that statement. It sums up certain Christian theologies rather well. However, the member has to okay with taking the heat that that statement will generate on the board.

 

"You are stupid for not following Jesus," on the other hand, while possibly true in some Christians' eyes, would be pushing it into personal attack territory. "You are evil and going to hell because you are xx" where xx is gay, pagan, or whatever else the hater chooses to put in there, is another one that would likely get a warning.

 

It is the difference between a statement of belief ("Follow Jesus or go to Hell!") and using one's faith as an excuse to insult (my examples).

 

Mendalla

 

 

 

"Members who have been banned at any time may not serve until at least two years after they are allowed to return."

 

Banning is still not defined, and is still an important issue, especially the definition of banning.  Since it is brought up in process, it means that banning can happen, and there is some kind of not banning for life since one can return, and at least after two years upon returning, may serve.

 

So seeking clarification of a banning process, and the timeline of banning someone, seems to be a good question. 

 

Obviously, it has been considered, otherwise the above conditional statement would not exist.

 

Seeking clarification and definition is only responsible.  It is in no way being difficult.

 

 

But that's not an uncommon Christian sentiment. I'm all for Christians being free to say that gays, pagans, and atheists, etc. are evil and going to hell.