Code of Conduct?


#95

Thanks for that.

This articulates nicely something that has pissed me off about the contrast between Reddit (where I’ve hung out since day 1) and my job at a university, but could never quite articulate.

As a prof, I can ask anyone to leave and they must, or they get charged. Even if they paid tuition. We have absolute power. It is sometimes (but not in my personal experience often) used to shut down debate. But it is there.

As opposed to Reddit or Usenet or…


#96

And your power has a source. You’re accredited educators.

Similar story for lines mods. It’s not arbitrary, it’s not capricious. And this is why we can trust that this power will be used wisely.


#97

I think to further strengthen your argument - if that trust in moderators starts to erode, an open conversation can take place here that will check their moderator privileges. I have faith in the moderators, but I also have faith in the general community.


#98

I guess part of the reason that I posted the lesswrong link is because I really hope that lines continues to be a nice place on the internet.


#99

I think the pieces are in place to make sure that happens.

What are the next steps with the Code of Conduct?


#100

thanks everyone for continuing to push the conversation forward and rounding out necessary elements of accountability + community development. folding in suggestions, here’s the proposed revision:


lines is a space that embraces civil dialogue, which can sometimes challenge biases through discussion and analysis. Diversity of thought is valued and encouraged.

Empathy is the core of communication on lines. Disagreement can remain healthy if each member: a) assumes positive intent and b) genuinely seeks to understand others.

Flagging is a tool for members to help moderators identify communication that does not exhibit empathy. To foster the growth of our community’s culture, all members should be held to a clear system of accountability.

When a post is flagged for incivility, a moderator will review it:

  • If the moderator agrees, they will contact the flagged member and share the community’s feedback. Members are not punished for their ideas or opinions, but they are held accountable for their presentation. The mod will encourage a revision of the post or other necessary action.
  • If the moderator disagrees, they will share their review with the flagging member to help guide good discourse.

If the flagged member receives additional related flags:

  • Their ability to post will be temporarily revoked.
  • A moderator will be available to discuss their actions and community impact.
  • If they express interest in remaining a contributing member of the lines community, they will be re-granted posting privileges after one week.

If, upon their return, the member does not demonstrate growth toward more empathetic communication (weighed by additional flags or other measures), this will be grounds for account termination.

lines is an inclusive community. Its moderators are committed to the respectful treatment of all community members. Hate speech or other targeted aggression is not tolerated.


Unless there are major flaws / requests that have not yet been voiced, I’d like to wrap up the community revision stage in the coming week and bring it back to the mods to make the necessary structural changes.

edit: I keep thinking about @ht73’s very on-point post:

I don’t have a great way to accomplish this without the big ole list, which is understandably not how the majority would like to proceed. The feedback I would be most interested in hearing is a clean, terse way to include this sentiment, if it is unmet by “lines is an inclusive community. Its moderators are committed to the respectful treatment of all community members. Hate speech or other targeted aggression is not tolerated.”


#101

If language is too “clean and terse”, it loses its power to evoke, to perform, to welcome, to gather. I think a “big ole list”, in other words, is fine, as long as it adequately covers the specific concern(s) that brought things to this point. Personally, I think the following is close enough, and was a bit sorry to see it removed:

By “close enough”, I mean that it seems to cover what @zebra stated so well:

It will never be complete or universal, but universality was and is never the point. And is not possible anyway: even a word like “inclusiveness” always has a meaning that is worked out only in the doing, in the discourse and mutual involvements that constitute a community.

What is the point, is a very specific and recent history, part of which we (unfortunately) saw here even if for a brief moment, and part of which arises continually and continually goes unchecked on other electronic music forums. If a completely different kind of situation arises then the “big ole list” can be amended. Hopefully we never reach that point!

Hope this helps, and I do appreciate your tremendous efforts to this end!


#102

Brevity is the soul of wit. If we are to have such a thing, let it be as brief as possible. :slight_smile:


#103

Agreed, I think specificity is needed in the case.

Either way it goes, I thank all of the mods for the efforts towards this and the open process of the creation.