[DRAFT] D_D Code of Conduct and moderation process

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

For now I’ve added these two points to the proposal, then support @Erik_Knobl point we can iterate from there

I believe it is healthy we get this proposal elevated for a snapshot vote asap. Please could we have some comments from remaining stewards @Colin4ward @mannyornothing @joshcstein @isiah @kayprasla @luan @Narb @Stefanie @willblackburn

1 Like

appreciate the effort gone into this, including from those attributed communities we’re borrowing ideas from. this feels like a strong starting point that can be iterated on as it gets utilized.

one thing i didn’t see is any way to report something anonymously. is that intentional? the linked report form, for example, requires fields that identify the person doing the reporting.

Looks quite thorough to me, well done gang! I think it covers most of the major areas of concern (at least to me it does) and as others have mentioned we can always iterate as edge cases come up

That was not intentional. I will add this as I think it’s important.

1 Like

Before elevating this, an idea just crossed my mind I think is worth considering @stewards

Given the Stewards are playing the moderator role, I wonder if it would be better for the CoC reporting form to go to the Elected Community Managers.

For:

  1. Wholy separate parties receiving these reports, arguably more credible neutral
  2. Larger pool of Moderators to draw from (given there wouldn’t be 2 of the Stewards playing the Facilitator role)

Against:

  1. More work for community managers

Be good to get the thoughts on the thoughts of those who have nominated themselves for CM as well @Billyjitsu @with-heart @Erik_Knobl @meowy @0x8e3c1a6d6516a2CD41

1 Like

I like it. Two separated entities would help a lot with neutrality. Good shout.

1 Like

I am okay with this.

1 Like

ping to prospective CMs (@meowy @with-heart @Billyjitsu @0x8e3c1a6d6516a2CD41) to get their thoughts on this… don’t want to add a shock to the role without getting your input.

Given the Stewards are playing the moderator role, I wonder if it would be better for the CoC reporting form to go to the Elected Community Managers.

For:

  1. Wholy separate parties receiving these reports, arguably more credible neutral
  2. Larger pool of Moderators to draw from (given there wouldn’t be 2 of the Stewards playing the > Facilitator role)

Against:

  1. More work for community managers

I have now updated the reporting form to allow for anon reports. See here.

How about asking community manager’s on case to case basis if they’re willing to help rather than assigning it to all cms.

1 Like

It could be an option!

A few things I think are important for us to consider here:

  1. It needs to be more than one person (in case a Member wants to report something about that person)
  2. It needs to be a stable position in the DAO that can be trusted by Member to handle these reports
  3. Ideally, it should be as neutral as possible

Maybe the CMs between them choose two people to do this? Or we leave it with the Stewards but worry that is s small pool of folks already and this centralises more control on that group, and handling reports of CoC violations feels like something well suited to community work :person_shrugging:

Is there a system in place that will reward users that pick up the report so people don’t just ignore the report hoping somebody else doesn’t pick it up and then gets forgetten?

Great question. The idea is we assign the Facilitator responsibility to a small group as part of their role. They are then expected to handle the reports and organise the moderators. Other than trusting whoever we deem the right folks to play that role, there is no mechanism for holding them accountable.

Practically, we have a form on a dedicated Gmail account which would forward responses to the people playing this role when a report is submitted. Not wedded to that personally, just felt like a good solution. More detail in the post on what would be required of the Faciliators, copied in below:

yeah, it seems like the best solution for now. I think it makes sense as the CMs will be within the community so I’m for it until we find a flaw.

1 Like