MEEP: Code of Conduct, S&G, reporting

Author: Barney
Code of Conduct
Voting
MEEP
Referendum

Posts

Archived
Read-only
Total: 145
Topic's author
#1
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
In short, for about a week we'll have a few voting questions open for the community to decide things.
This referendum will run until 10:00am PT (UTC-7), June 1st 2020.


About MEEP:
As seen in the moderation overview,
Moderation may submit questions and proposals regarding moderation policy, voting policy, and the code of conduct to Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes (MEEPs). MEEPs are binding referenda and comment periods on the questions and proposals submitted. Moderation has full discretion on which questions and proposals are submitted to MEEPs, though no substantive change to the COC may be made without either the consent of the site owner(s) or ratification via a MEEP.

In order for a submitted question or proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have voted in the MEEP, and more than a majority of all those voting must have voted for the question or proposal. That means, in practice, that in a MEEP with 10 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7 votes in favor of the proposal or question. If a MEEP fails to produce a binding result, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, unless doing so is entirely untenable.


The Questions:
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of each question is included as well. Please vote "yes" or "no" to each of these questions.
  
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
 Voting "yes" to this question will overhaul and streamline the Code of Conduct.
 
A few key changes between the current CoC and the proposed one:
  • Streamlined it, cutting the length by 45%.
  • Made it no longer dependent upon external extended policies and interpretations documents.
  • Codified various policies (e.g., context affecting consequences, protocols for new accounts, etc.)
  • Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
  • Expanded to impersonation rule to everyone.
  • Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
  • Removal of the no "Contravening or Disregarding Moderation" rule.
  • Added clauses to protect children.
  • And more...


2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
This is not to imply encouraging it... A "yes" to this may be divided into two subsets (either yes option endorses change):
  1. "Yes1" indicates with minimal restrictions. Identifying information for example, is still protected under the general doxing rule.
  2. "Yes2" indicates exclusively with moderator approval.


3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
 Voting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of other legibility issues which distract the user from the arguments themselves (sPeLlInG EvErYtHiNg lIke tHiS, as an example). This would slightly simplify one aspect of voting, and inform a larger effort to overhaul the voting policies in a manner similar to the CoC.
 
 
4. Require a reason when submitting a report?

Voting "yes," would require users to message a moderator or use the upcoming improved report tool provide details on why the report is being filed.
No is divided into two options, 
  1. "No1" indicates a belief against the requirement.
  2. "No2" indicates opposition to upgrading the report tool in that direction.


Voting:
I'm not that attached to how people vote, so long as it's easy to understand. People may also change their votes, but please don't be a pain about it.

A vote could look like this:
  1. Yes, 
  2. Yes1, (the 1 signifying a preference for variant 1)
  3. Yes.
Like this (the missing 2, counts it as abstaining that question):
1. No, each change should be an individual question
3. Yes, we shouldn't even have voting rules.

Or even like this (a vote against 3, but abstaining from the others):
Wrong direction for voting, so no.
Topic's author
#2
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
In case anyone missed it, there was a previous thread for refinements and adding questions.

My vote:
  1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
    Yes, for progress.
  2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
    Yes2, updated due to member concerns.
  3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
    Yes, as it's a first step in making the voting policy less nit-picky.
  4. Require a reason when submitting a report?
    No1, I would love if more people said why they are reporting things, but I don't want it to be forced.

Polling (updated 9:30am PT, June 1st):
Of 20 votes total (some questions were abstained by some participants)...
  1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
    83.3% in favor (15 yes, 3 no).
  2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
    60.0% Yes2 (7 Yes1, 12 Yes2, 1 No).
  3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
    76.5% in favor (13 Yes, 4 No).
  4. Require a reason when submitting a report?
    57.9% in favor of No1 (6 Yes, 11 No1, 1 No2).

#3
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
1 No.Do not ratify the new code of conduct

2 yes1

3 no

4 no1
#4
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,952
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
1. Yes

2. Yes1

3. Yes

4. No1
#5
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@David
@Barney
  1. Yes, but I want to say that too much is changed at once and the more information about the rules, the better as a general rule of thumb. A set of rules that's too long to read in one sitting is better than a set of rules that's too short to ever explain enough when the time comes for the user to know the boundaries. You should not put all of this into one vote, let us vote on each part. I vote 'yes' because it's good enough and better than the previous, so it's the lesser evil.
  2. Yes2, I think option 1 is where the lines become blurred and that 2 not already being in place is silly. If the one revealing the PM isn't compelled to do so but instead is choosing to do so to help moderators do their job, that is fine. The key thing with Bsh1's suggestion was that it was against both parties who are PMing's will. That is NSA level surveillance and is where we get into 'what is privacy' concepts.
  3. Yes, it already does, it just doesn't explicitly say it.
  4. No1, I also recommend having tick boxes that you select from regarding the categories of rule breakage. This is much easier than typing out a reason and helps lazier or busier reporters do what they have to while helping you do what you have to.



#6
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,302
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
1. No, screw you mods. Only reason I’m voting no is because of the removal of the can’t target mods rule. I advocated for each part to be a separate question along with another dude but nothing occurred because mods want to play some politics. 

2. Yes1

3. Abstain

4. No1
#7
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@Barney
  1. Yes
  2. Yes2
  3. Abstain, but really, S&G points shouldn't exist.
  4. No1

#8
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
1) Yes
2) Yes1
3) Yes
4) No1 (as I said before checkmark list still makes sense)

Topic's author
#9
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Thank you for the feedback.

Regarding #1: I'm quite open to including refinement questions on another referendum soon. I believe this one will move us into a place where further change (even backwards change) is a lot easier.

Regarding #2: The current rule has been a pain.

Regarding #3: There has been dispute over that, so I want to end it.

Regarding #3: Great idea!
#10
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
Yes, although there should definitely be a separate MEEP solely for the new COC to iron out some wrinkles. 

2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
Yes2. I strongly believe that many things in the PMs should be kept private. The only reason mods should disclose private information is if the safety of the members of DART and the community as a whole outweighs the individual's inherent right to privacy.

3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
No. True, there can be certain cases when the structuring of a debate argument gets to the point of impeding its meaning. However, I have never seen debates like that ever (and even if they do occur, they would be extraordinarily rare). The main concern I have with this rule is that it leaves a very wide grey area for what "well" and "poorly" structured debates look like. There are many different ways people formulate their arguments, and just because someone doesn't post an argument that looks aesthetically pleasing doesn't mean they should get punished for it.

4. Require a reason when submitting a report?
Yes. Sure, it would help the mods do their job more efficiently, but in my eyes, the main purpose of this would be to prevent abusive reporting, report trolling, accidental reporting (something which I myself have done multiple times on mobile), and any other activity in which a post gets flagged without a legitimate reason. Making the reason optional might prevent accidental reporting, but other than that would defeat the whole purpose of having a reason when submitting a report. 

#11
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@PressF4Respect
Making the reason optional might prevent accidental reporting, but other than that would defeat the whole purpose of having a reason when submitting a report. 
No, it wouldn't. The category tick-box method would help but overall some things are so obvious anyway that I don't think you're right in saying this.

#12
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
1. Yes

2. Yes 2

3. Yes, and add an ability to offer "Kudos" for a participant's particularly unique, exemplary  argument

4. No 1
#13
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
Why would you, as a Mod and someone who clearly has a lot of PMs that you don't want public as you're a very active and talked-to member of the site, vote Yes1 instead of Yes2 to question 2?
#14
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
By the way, I have actually broken the PM doxxing rule if Yes2 isn't already allowed, both when I helped them catch Sparrow and a couple other times. I was never warned or punished for it.
Topic's author
#15
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Why would you, as a Mod and someone who clearly has a lot of PMs that you don't want public as you're a very active and talked-to member of the site, vote Yes1 instead of Yes2 to question 2?
I really could go either way on it. When in doubt, I lean towards less power to the moderation team. I've already previously had old PMs of mine leaked, and I think it says a lot more about the toxicity of the person leaking it, than it does about what I say in confidence.

Also, I've been told moderators refrained from voting on previous referendums. Any thoughts on if us voting should or should not be allowed? I've always taken the view that since we're not paid, we're still primarily site members.
#16
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
Most sites don't hold these elections xD, of course you can vote. Obama voted Obama and Trump voted Trump.
#17
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
1. No, there should be a seperate MEEP for these changes overall to focus on the specifics that should be added
2. Yes1. With exceptions to mafia, doxxing, etc
3. No. S&G play a key role already with the system, I don't think anyones is gonna give points to an argument when they can read it. Someone can lose only a point for unclear arguments versus 3. 
4. No2. Add a feature where you it's mandatory to give report explanation with 5+ characters.
#18
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Vader
You meant to vote 'yes' on 3, based on what you wrote after it.
You also meant to vote 'yes' on 4, based on your description.
#19
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@RationalMadman
Fair enough then, switch my votes to yes for those two then
#20
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
so now its

1. no
2. yes1
3. yes
4. yes
Topic's author
#21
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Current Polling:
Of 10 votes total...
  1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
    80% yes.
  2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
    100% yes.
    60% vs 40% for which form of the refinement.
  3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
    75% yes, with two people abstaining.
  4. Require a reason when submitting a report?
    80% no.

#22
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
Regarding the PM options, the wrong one is winning.

Option 1 is dangerous because it's also retroactive, which truly violates the trust and feeling of privacy people had while PMing. Meanwhile, option 2 is so obviously an exception that already should be occuring and which no one would assume was 'protected' by the rules.
#23
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Barney
Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
75% yes, with two people abstaining.
Wait, how can there be a 75% yes with 10 people voting? 75% would mean that 7.5 people voted yes.

#24
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Barney
Also, just a suggestion, but maybe formatting the poll like this?

Polling (updated 1:30pm PT):
Of 10 votes total...

1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
7 Yes, 3 No

2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
6 Yes1, 4 Yes2, 0 No

3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
6 Yes, 2 No, 2 Abstain

4. Require a reason when submitting a report?
2 Yes, 8 No1, 0 No2



#25
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Barney
Oh yeah nearly forgot to mention, but for #1, 3 people (crossed, ILikePie5, and SupaDudz) voted no, not 2.
#26
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@RationalMadman
No, it wouldn't. The category tick-box method would help but overall some things are so obvious anyway that I don't think you're right in saying this.
If it's so obvious, then the person making the report should have no problem explaining the offensive aspect of the report. If instead, you're talking about reports that are obviously fake, then requiring reasons for reports would eliminate them entirely.

Topic's author
#27
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@RationalMadman
violates the trust and feeling of privacy people had while PMing
You've got a great point. I've updated my vote to reflect my agreement with your concern.
Topic's author
#28
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Wait, how can there be a 75% yes with 10 people voting? 75% would mean that 7.5 people voted yes.
Two people abstaining, so only 8 votes counted toward that.


As for other ways to display the results, I focused in on what data I found most interesting. The raw data can be seen at:


Oh yeah nearly forgot to mention, but for #1, 3 people (crossed, ILikePie5, and SupaDudz) voted no, not 2.
Thank you for the correction.
#29
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Barney
Wait, how can there be a 75% yes with 10 people voting? 75% would mean that 7.5 people voted yes.
Two people abstaining, so only 8 votes counted toward that.
Oh okay then. Makes sense lol.

Oh yeah nearly forgot to mention, but for #1, 3 people (crossed, ILikePie5, and SupaDudz) voted no, not 2.
Thank you for the correction.
No problem!
#30
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
My vote:
  1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
    Yes!
  2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
    Yes1, the truth will set us free.
  3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
    Yes, but S&G shouldn't exist as a point.
  4. Require a reason when submitting a report?
    No1