[DRAFT] D_D Code of Conduct and moderation process

What I am reading seems right. I don’t see any jarring errors.

1 Like

:paw_prints: Really nice piece of work. @kempsterrrr and everyone who contributed and inspired all the ideation and time that went into providing this needed guardrail for the safe functioning of our community. A great insurance policy for all of us. I’m super happy to see it finding its feet. :footprints:

One more ‘act’ of unacceptable behaviour we should add here that inevitably leads to mistrust and therefore deteriorating relationships/projects:

EDIT @kempsterrrr Part 1 finish edit The claiming of another’s ideas as your own, in order to promote yourself. It’s bad enough when it happens among colleagues, but if others’ hard work is claimed as your own to a different audience, especially in public spaces, it’s quite simple what it is. Simply put. it’s plagiarism.

EDIT @kempsterrrr Part 2 finish edit And when events are falsified to compound a claim such as the above, it should be considered as an additional conscious act.

As we all know, we’re working across many contexts and channels of communication. It’s only right that we foster a collegial atmosphere and give credit for contributions and ideas, where credit is due.

Often where it begins:
is some one person compiling the creative ideas of others. It can be as innocent as scribing/relaying the ideas from a meeting, or private (textual) conversation, but then taking credit as the actual composer of those ideas. That often leads to a ‘title’ which leads to entitlement. The compiler climbs a ladder (gets included in the rise), often the original ideators are left to hold that ladder (get excluded). Frustration and then burnout can set in.

Let’s create with friends, and celebrate together.

p.s. I applaud the name changes to stewards and operators in this community. It erodes the culture of patriarchy and superiority. I believe we’re moving in a good direction. Once again, thank you D_D.

1 Like

Those are very good points. I’ll drop some ideas here. Let me know what you think:

  1. Twitter thread explain core concepts alongside snapshot post (+ shared in newsletter/announced on discord)
  2. Added to @Erik_Knobl DAO Operating system on passing.
  3. Slot on Feb 24th at Town Hall for an overview/questions

Be interested to know more regarding your grace period thoughts - what would you like to see? X Days after snapshot passes for above things to be done?

Sure, would be happy to do this.

By this, do you just mean abuse of this process i.e. reporting things that are untrue?

@ntindle shared similar feedback on this.

@stewards, this proposal needs more engagement before we can consider elevating it for a vote.

Some questions were raised in the comments already which be worth reading. Assuming folks are happy, it would be nice to have this in place when the Stewards are elected. That means elevating the proposal on Wednesday February 22 inline with the Stewards Snapsot vote

Proposed changes, add the following points for CoC violations:

  • Passing off someone else’s work as your own
  • Abusing this process

It’s nice to see coc proposal on the process.
From our ddw team we will encourage member to always learn about coc violations and it’s process.

I have 2 concerns,

  • how can we convince folks that it’s worth reporting these violations? Because some folks might just leave rather than creating ruckus and find a community that’s suited for their need.
  • also how effective it would be even long term? because even if we report it and the DAO takes action but I wonder if the person who reported will still be safe from the abuser?

Overall, I hope we dont have to use it too often and we can nurture a safe and diverse community.

1 Like


Very valid concern; I have this too. Think it boils down to education and clear documentation. As a min, I’d personally like to see:

  1. This given a very clear place on Github, Notion and D_D Operating System
  2. Added to onboarding cc @allWiseee @myz1237.eth

Do you have any thoughts on what else could be done?

Tough one. The DAO can only take action in the DAO using the framework above. Someone can report something happening outside of the DAO however, if that is say happening in someone’s DM, whilst the DAO can take action to remove them from the server etc. it can’t take action beyond what it can control like that.

Do you have anything specific in mind @meowy ?

Overall, I hope we dont have to use it too often and we can nurture a safe and diverse community.

me too

I’m thinking something like 30 days or even 60 days after something has passed when it comes to enforceable actions. During those days it would be heavy communication on the changes. It needs to become borderline annoying so that people know that new rules would be coming into effect.

1 Like

30 to 60 days feels far too long, at least for all changes. Definitely support something along these lines. What are your thoughts on:

  • Proposals don’t go into effect until Next Steps for the proposal have been finalised, and it is here we determine what the requirements are for an effective role out. Here we could add requirements for messaging etc., rather than create an arbitrarily long grace period for everything when somethings are very valuable to get live with reason asap, such as this.
  • Maybe a small, 7 day window for things to go into effect could be nice and then the Next Steps have to be completed.

Insterested to hear thoughts from the other @stewards on this topic as well.

The way I think about it is like software deprecation notices and how many users a product has. If there was 100 users, then a shorter time frame could be done to really give people notice of changes (heck you could make 100 individual calls). As the number of users increase, then I think the length of time needs to increase to meet the time needed for things to be fully aware, especially for things as severe as expulsion.

To use one of your examples for unacceptable behaviour in a scenario:

  • Code of conduct is approved and messaging starts
  • I’m away on holidays for 2 weeks and I don’t see any messages
  • I come back and I post a photo about Vitalik’s Bulge and start commenting about it as joke
  • Another day goes by and I post another photo and joke about it
  • A week goes by and another member finds what I posted unacceptable and reports all the posts I made
  • It looks like I recklessly ignored the new code and posted about things multiple times which could lead to expulsion

That timeframe is about 3-4 weeks. My thinking is that 7 days might still be too short, but would love to know what you think and if I’m reaching for an edge case.

1 Like

In that case we can probably try to categorize coc violation with specific unacceptable behaviors with the consent of the victim.

  • high :fire: (never more than 7 days because it can be traumatic experience for a person if it’s too long)
  • medium :zap: (never more than 2 weeks and also ensuring the victim is okay)
  • low :ocean:(30 days but giving notice/updates in 2 weeks and telling the victim/reminding them that we are taking actions)

Just throwing some ideas.

No, i wasn’t referring to the COC process itself (although of course that is 100% valid), I meant in reference to part 1 of situation I sketched.
Part 1. - I’m claiming this i.e. I created this - it’s now apparently my creation, my claim and therefore in my possession
Part 2 - This and this and this happened for me to get this creation, not forgetting the omission of events, or others, is also a conscious decision i.e. being economical with the truth
Sorry for the delay @kempsterrrr …busy days…

I think 1. 2. and 3. are solid ideas - is it an idea to add the link to this proposal in the announcement for the town hall…maybe with an open question as a thought/title “How safe do you feel in the DAO? We will have an overview/questions slot in the Town Hall for that. Read up on the proposal and make your town hall contributions to that slot meaningful. For yourself, others and the DAO” - I’m sure a great mind like your own could condense such a message into a short sentence. Brevity isn’t one of my strong points/
As for grace periods, i’m sorry I’m not too sure.

1 Like

I fully understand your points here. However, to share another scenario from the otherside of this.

Let’s say we wait 30 days for this to pass and in that window, someone is mistreated badly in the DAO, and they have no way of reporting it or having anything done about it. Is that better than the process not being fully understood?

Trying to prioritise safety here. I’m aware of various incidents in the past that have not been dealt with and made folks feel unsafe and unwelcome. I think. it’s reasonable, at least in this case, to get this one out quickly, but I do sympathise and understand we need to consider how we can do a better job generally on education around changes in the DAO. Interested in opening another discussion on this on the forum?

Love ideas :pray: Who would determine what is low/medium/high?

I’m not we can have a good answer for that question tbh. My hope is the Enforcement Guidlines will provide the Stewards with enough direction to act accordingly.

We already have a clause in here that deals with someone not honouring the process, how do you feel about this:

Suppose a member continues to engage in harassing behaviour. In that case, the Facilitators may take any action they deem appropriate, including expulsion from the server in pursuit of safety.

I think getting this out there sooner rather than later and amending if we see it not working is better than waiting longer to try to perfect… good > perfect :slight_smile:

Sorry man, really not sure I follow here :frowning_face: can you try to rephrase?

hmmmmm - we definitely need to explain and reiterate the CoC and moderation process in the next town hall. Not sure being so explicit about the nature of the questions that folks might ask is the right way to go though; why not just an open Q&A with a time-limit? Such expansive emotive questions are important but it has the chance of consuming all the emotional energy and time on a Town Hall when there are a LOT of things to update on and discuss.

Another role call for @stewards to comment/share their thoughts on this proposal.

What happens if one of the Facilitators is the accused one?

This is why two facilitators will receive the reports, so one person can’t hide something.

I edited the original post [DRAFT] D_D Code of Conduct and moderation process - #8 by Piablo and tagged you in those two small edits to simply point you to where and what I meant by part 1 and part 2

I hope I don’t muddy the waters even further, but I’ll use an analogy.
You get caught robbing a TV from someone’s house and in your statement to the cops you say the front door was open and there was a sign saying ‘please take the tv inside’
but you get to court and the judge finds out that you smashed the back door open, and you weren’t were with a couple of friends, who got away.
So you have two charges;
part 1 (first charge): stealing the TV
part 2: (second charge) lying about the circumstances

This why we need deliberative democracy!!..the days before the pen and the keyboard! :smile:

Thanks. Would be awesome to have user flows of this process to make it more accesible.

100% - now teams are settling down, I’d like to document everything in the original figma planning board as a source of truth and reference. We can then export these flows etc. to various places where this information is shared/made discoverable i.e. D_D Operating System