Code of Conduct?


#53

well, less emotionally, that’s all i’m saying. i’m not saying the CoC should explicitly ban ideologies, i’m saying that certain ideologies are predicated on a lack of empathy, and explicitly saying (or strongly implying) that we do allow the expression of any ideology is going to be a problem.

so, agreed.


#54

Maybe add a sentence that reiterates the point that “Empathy is the core of communication on lines.” That acceptance/tolerance are conditional on that point.

Needs more wordsmithing.


#55

The intention of the CoC is to enable the moderators to be more proactive about problematic comments, not to limit the ability to critique comments. I don’t believe this CoC will change who is going to signup to lines - indeed I doubt users will more than glance over it.

What we (the moderators) have discussed is a desire for a document we can point to explaining why we’re directly contacting a certain member, and what is at issue. I think the proposed wording does that quite well. It’s difficult to say “your words show a lack of empathy” if it isn’t officially stated that showing empathy is a requirement.

The last paragraph of the proposed CoC doesn’t say anything about what can be discussed. Rather it promotes “equitable treatment of all community members regardless of their identity.” If a person’s expression of their opinion leads to other’s inequity, then the moderators will step in with the articulated actions. By my reading, this does not make any value judgments, and does not intend to.


#56

:clap: applause! …


#57

(sorry i’ll stop)

totally 100% agree, and yeah those are the motivations all right.

cynically, though, i expect to hear: “hey you said i would get equitable treatment regardless of political ideology, so how come it’s ok to talk about Queer Rights but not Men’s Rights?”

i mean, that’s gonna happen because… internet

so maybe a few less words is better. [/end]


#58

yeah, I think it would be hard to undersell the impact a Code of Conduct will make on an arriving member. If we keep this perspective in mind, perhaps it makes sense to emphasize the “etc” in the last paragraph, as @ht73 suggested.

I’m also reminded of what somebody’s daughter said about lines/forums in general in response to that ill-framed thread on the gender imbalance on lines—"[people] are smart enough to know when they’re not welcome"


#59

I totally hear you! Would love to have you onboard without having to make an explicit list of things we find abhorrent.

Perhaps this is my personal ideology coming through, but I see Queer Rights as being about equitable treatment of all, whereas Men’s Rights seems (from my limited knowledge) to be focused on equal treatment. It would be difficult for a Men’s Rights adherent to argue they were inequitably treated by a discussion around Queer Rights, while the opposite could very likely be true!


#60

ha yeah, i’m sorry i must just be bad at this.

explicit list of things we find abhorrent.

i guess that is what i’m doing right now, but the point is that i think it suffices to say that we want Empathetic Discourse as a requirement and we don’t need to list all the categories of identity that shall be tolerated, because that can become kind of contradictory and just create Food for Trolls! :biohazard: :crystal_ball: :unicorn: :underage:

again suggesting less words, not more words.

that said! some categories that really are historically problematic, might be worth emphasizing. current draft veers maybe a little too overspecific; too terse would also be a problem, but i think it’s really close!

specifically: i’d leave out the vaguest ones - “political ideology” and “spirituality” come to mind. (are we really gonna have a problem with someone on lines feeling singled out for their spirituality? heck, maybe - i’ve had anti-semitic slurs thrown at me on pretty much every synth forum there is!)

(ok really i made my point enough, apologies, over and out)


#61

Yes. Civility toward all is the main concept I would embrace here.


#62

(Sorry to carry on!) Do you think the below (last paragraph) is appropriate & avoids the invitation of trolling?:

The lines moderators are committed to the equitable treatment of all community members, regardless of their identity.

If so, what do others think about removing an explicit (yet not limited!) list of identity categories? Why did we want to list them in the first place? I think seeing a discussion entitled “Women and Trans People Discussion thread” says a lot more than a code ever could.

I doubt the more explicit CoC would itself stop someone making a (for eg) transphobic comment, so it will end up as a moderation situation regardless. I don’t think the mods (or a member!) need an explicit list to be able to say “your comment is not empathetic” and “your words are harmful to people in our community”, so if the end result is the same then I would lean toward the more terse form.


#63

What’s wrong with “respectful” in place of “equitable”?

If “respectful” needs to be spelled out, we can define it as “careful and constructive”

Thus we don’t ourselves take on the false and unnecessary “ideal observer” position that is in fact at the core of privilege, and which can be implied by the term “equitable”.

Just a thought, again no need for this to be perfect.


#64

I think, given the problems that surfaced, and that have repeatedly plagued other electronic music forums, where misogyny and transphobia go completely unchallenged (and if one does challenge, one is shut down by mods for violating “no politics” rules), we DO need to make it clear that we are welcoming of the identities mentioned, while leaving something open in a more vague sense for other identities.


#65

What I hear you saying is you want to be explicitly inclusive without being accidentally exclusive.

BTW - writing these sorts of things is Hard Work, because it should be. I like what I’m seeing so far, thanks to everyone contributing to the process.


#66

i agree that the wordiness of the statement runs the risk of giving fuel and grounds to an antagonistic person who comes to lines and wants to assert aggression over people who are being sensitive in order to feel powerful. i also don’t think there should be anything wrong with saying (in much more graceful words (this subject just hits too close to home for me)) ~ hey - this is an open public forum where anyone can respectfully participate in the conversations but we are going to stand up against this specific kind of behavior because it factually runs rampant within online music “communities” and we are not going to just let it slide here so go somewhere else if you’re going to make lots of people feel invalidated and uncomfortable in their own skin because you literally have just about everywhere else in the world to do go that :slight_smile: ~

i agree with so much of what @zebra said. we have to make these spaces for ourselves, because the world as we know it does not naturally cultivate them. otherwise we just leave and seek out the spaces that make us feel safe and loved.

lines is very rare and special. it will withstand all of this and continue to serve as an example in the tiny blip of the internet which is occupies. sometimes slowly but radically changing the ways in which things inherently operate requires a little bit of firmness, especially because the people that can make this forum a bad feeling place do not always share the peacemaking mindset.


#67

my thoughts as a long time lurker are to just let it be. i find codes of conduct offensive in that they imply that a few occasional jerks force the rest of us to acknowledge their existence “forever” with the existence of the code.


#68

i missed something obviously. can someone summarize without can of worms?


#69

I see where you are coming from, and there was an incident that I missed, that took place, it seems like it sucked a lot. The Code being created out of that incident, in some ways feels like a monument to it. However, as communities it’s important to grow and learn from those experiences.

From what I understand, the reason a Code of Conduct seem important now is that the moderation team (which has grown, and is made up of individuals who may not all be awake or available when a comment is flagged) want or need a reference for when a user is contacted after a comment is flagged.

I think it’s in the spirit of transparency so that comments that hurt the community can be dealt with in a timely fashion. The Code is as much for the moderation teams sake as it is the communities. Moderation can be really tough especially when the rules appear to arbitrary or unevenly enforced. For those reasons, I think the Code makes sense to exist.


#70

The jerks’ impact is far more than occasional. Think about all the voices that are not heard and the discussions that were forming and then did not take place, because you know there are bad faith actors lurking who will twist things and weaponize anything they can find.

The impact is always on what is left unsaid. It makes it hard to see; that’s one of the many ways privilege hides itself.


#71

I love that this thread can be pointed to as proof enough that lines is a bright warm light.

imo, the code of conduct is a clear thing to point to if an account needs terminated but it’s also an opportunity to make our values clear. a few folks have already said that they’d feel more welcome with the closing statement than without it, so that’s a signal (to me) to include it. it’s definitely wordy, but I think the words either resonate positively for those who need to see them or as a ‘cool, yeah, I get it’ to those who don’t.

trolls will troll, regardless. but I want to make sure we shine that light as far as it can reach.

does something like this acknowledge the (understandable) points made by others, without negating your perspectives?:

The lines moderators are committed to the respectful treatment of all community members, regardless of their identity. lines has room to grow, but our starting points are: class, color, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, immigration status, political ideology, race, sex, sexual orientation and religious, non-religious, or spiritual beliefs.

edit: does a less specific / more direct option still feel protective?

lines is an inclusive community. its moderators are committed to the respectful treatment of all community members. hate speech or other targeted incivility is not tolerated.


#72

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.