Loomio
Tue 4 Mar 2014

Community Moderation Policy - Let’s Design it Together

CR
Chelsea Robinson Public Seen by 245

This Loomio Community group is one of the most important parts of Loomio and our work here online, and we love engaging with each and every one of you. Our crowdfunding campaign is going to explode next week and we're hoping our exposure will increase dramatically, all around the world.

With more people in the conversation, we think this group might grow in size and more people will join the community. As this community group grows, how do you want to enhance and protect the quality of your experience in this group?

Inclusive groups are inclusive because of principles which make it safe for everyone to participate effectively, and a strong culture of respect and open communication. What principles would we like to uphold about how we interact here no matter how big, how global, how diverse we get?

We believe in the best in people, which is why we’re making a tool so all voices can be heard. But we all know that sometimes you have to draw a line. Where should that line be drawn? What kind of behavior would necessitate moderators stepping in, or having to make someone leave the community? These are worst case scenarios, but understanding these boundaries is how we nurture the best case scenarios.

Let's start by talking about what we love about Loomio Community group, and develop some principles from there for protecting what we love as we grow and change. We are trying to develop the first iteration of a moderation policy this week (although it will always be evolving) so if you have thoughts about this, have your say!

DU

[deactivated account] Tue 4 Mar 2014

It would be a long list of why I support Loomio - but 3 include a) the equalizing of leadership and that proposals and resulting votes to support decision/directions are from the mass. b) that the method of voting allows for clear recognition of positions "abstaining" actually means something in this model c) the commitment that the interface to the world-community is universally accessible.

RDB

Richard D. Bartlett Tue 4 Mar 2014

Something I love in any community is holding a safe space for diversity of opinions.

I tend to have strong opinions that are frequently proved wrong and occasionally proved right. It's important that we can hear very diverse ideas, that we're open to hearing dissent, and we listen for who is not being heard in a conversation.

AS

Alina Siegfried Wed 5 Mar 2014

Like @richarddbartlett I think it is important to provide a safe place for dissent. Loomio is a place of learning where people can come from professional roles and learn a much more open, honest and collaborative way of working together. When there are problems, this community does not stick it's head in the sand. We allow room for them to be discussed and debated, and hopefully for resolutions to come forward.

In saying that, personal attacks and repeated negative comments without explanations of views or suggested alternatives could be a good place to target moderation.

PJ

Peta Joyce Thu 6 Mar 2014

"a strong culture of respect and open communication" are the words in your post that leapt out at me. We all may have different interpretations of what this means. Dissent and strong words are fine for some, not for others, so maybe it's all in the intent - if my intent is to attack individuals or manipulate things to my own advantage, rather than add to the common good or further the discussion, then we need to be able to give participants that feedback and a chance to change their way of communicating, or to have some self-insight into the effect they are having on others. I think outlining some common agreements like upholding a strong culture of respect and open communication would be a good start.

AI

Alanna Irving Thu 6 Mar 2014

I find this post pretty much covers a lot: The Universal Rules of Civilized Discourse

AI

Alanna Irving started a proposal Thu 6 Mar 2014

Approve the Moderation Policy Closed Sun 9 Mar 2014

Outcome
by Alanna Irving Mon 27 Feb 2017

The initial moderation policy has been unanimously approved by those who participated. This policy is now in effect. We will continue to evolve this policy collaboratively as needed going forward. I will link it from the group description.

I have written up a draft policy and I am putting it a proposal to see if it gets approval.

The policy:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEIWhqpkt7WFnMXOxDesjLEsaAJudNRrBhOFCZp3vQI/edit?usp=sharing

I have written this myself without collaborating so I fully expect to get feedback and make changes before this is finally approved!

Please keep in mind that this is a first iteration. I would like to have a policy in place that people are OK with before we attract a lot of public attention next week (around crowdfunding) but I expect this policy will improve and evolve over time.

Results
Agree - 13
Abstain - 13
Disagree - 13
Block - 13
13 people have voted (1%)
CT

Chris Taklis
Agree
Thu 6 Mar 2014

i couldn't say it better!

RG

Rob Guthrie
Agree
Thu 6 Mar 2014

FN

Fernando Nunes
Agree
Thu 6 Mar 2014

RDB

Richard D. Bartlett
Agree
Thu 6 Mar 2014

Nice

MC

Malcolm Colman-Shearer
Agree
Fri 7 Mar 2014

PJ

Peta Joyce
Agree
Fri 7 Mar 2014

A good start, agree it will evolve over time...

VM

vivien maidaborn
Agree
Fri 7 Mar 2014

CR

Chelsea Robinson
Agree
Sat 8 Mar 2014

Great start. I want to uphold authenticity of participation here. As soon as someone is being inauthentic I think we can all work to bring them back to authenticity. I like your bottom lines Alanna

BK

Benjamin Knight
Agree
Sat 8 Mar 2014

Feels like a really great starting point

JS

Josemi Sobron
Agree
Sat 8 Mar 2014

MI

mix irving
Agree
Sat 8 Mar 2014

DG

David G.
Agree
Sat 8 Mar 2014

An excellent starting point. Changes can be made down the road as experiene dictates.

AS

Alina Siegfried
Agree
Sat 8 Mar 2014

Really good starting point, thanks Alanna. I feel good knowing that we have this before we throw ourselves into the limelight.

TT

Theodore Taptiklis Thu 6 Mar 2014

I think there's a really practical solution here. And it doesn't require considering the worst that could happen and building a worst-case solution.

My suggestion is that you look at this question through the lens of relationship. People's expectations around conversational conduct on Loomio will be set before they get into a discussion. So the character of the initial invitation and the unfolding of the process that gets to the discussion will set the tone for what happens in a particular case.

A crucial difference between Loomio and other online forums is that people join as a member of a group. So the unspoken but nonetheless present character of the relationship between group members will strongly influence the way people speak to one another. So i don't think you have to invent rules of conduct...they will already be present and able to be drawn upon.

I think this group membership is a huge asset for Loomio. So I would be strongly tempted to avoid moderation in favour of encouraging the group to self-police its conduct. So there could be a meta-conversation where one person could call another out - of course, in a productive and positive way. Maybe you could have an example of doing this on the site somewhere.

My sense is that members of Loomio groups looking out for each other is closer to the ethos you are building than either a list of rules or an external moderation policy.

TT

Theodore Taptiklis Thu 6 Mar 2014

The other thing would be to look for real examples and experiences of people 'crossing the line' and focus on those rather than looking for a blanket solution.

AI

Alanna Irving Thu 6 Mar 2014

Up to now, no one has really "crossed the line" - we've never had to kick anyone out. But I think it's likely that someday someone will troll for the sake of trolling. In that instance, relationship building won't really help because they were never valuing the relationship in the first place. I fully expect that kind of situation to be extremely rare. But when it happens, I want us to have a mandate to kick them out.

FN

Fernando Nunes Thu 6 Mar 2014

Congrats, @alanna. The text got awesome!

BK

Benjamin Knight Sat 8 Mar 2014

Figuring out how to treat situations where a person's behaviour is excluding others has got to be the core challenge of any community that seeks to be truly inclusive.

I think this is a great first iteration of a clearly laid out process. Really like the emphasis on principles and shared purpose

G

goob Sat 8 Mar 2014

Is there a means of reading the proposal for those of us who don't use Google?

RDB

Richard D. Bartlett Sat 8 Mar 2014

@goob here it is on Etherpad: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/AxZP6TfL91

G

goob Sat 8 Mar 2014

Thanks, Richard.

JL

Jon Lemmon Sun 9 Mar 2014

Yayy!!!

DS

Danyl Strype Wed 2 Apr 2014

I really like the Rules of Civilized Discourse. The 'If you see a problem flag it' section got me to thinking, what if I could engage in an 'act of facilitation' (we've been discussion these elsewhere) by tagging comments in a non-threatening way. Eg an aggressive comment could be tagged with 'I felt attacked when I read this comment'. Or maybe a mood-minding traffic light where friendly comments could be tagged as green, off-topic or confusing ones as amber, and aggressive or threatening ones as red?

Process note: I'm aware that the Loomio team have a well-established habit of using GoogleDocs. I'd like to encourage them (and everyone) to make use of the awesome paperclip tool to attach longer documents as a .PDF, a .TXT or in an OpenDocument format. This leads to a couple of ...

Other feature requests:
1) it would be great to be able to attach documents to decision proposals and outcomes, and in the Context Box
2) it would be great to be able to browse all attached files from a library or archive page, maybe sortable by title, date and format?

DS

Danyl Strype Wed 2 Apr 2014

I really like the Rules of Civilized Discourse. The ‘If you see a problem flag it’ section got me to thinking, what if I could engage in an ‘act of facilitation’ (we’ve been discussion these elsewhere) by tagging comments in a non-threatening way. Eg an aggressive comment could be tagged with ‘I felt attacked when I read this comment’. Or maybe a mood-minding traffic light where friendly comments could be tagged as green, off-topic or confusing ones as amber, and aggressive or threatening ones as red?

Process note: I’m aware that the Loomio team have a well-established habit of using GoogleDocs. I’d like to encourage them (and everyone) to make use of the awesome paperclip tool to attach longer documents as a .PDF, a .TXT or in an OpenDocument format. This leads to a couple of …

Other feature requests:
1) it would be great to be able to attach documents to decision proposals and outcomes, and in the Context Box
2) it would be great to be able to browse all of a group's attached files from a library or archive page, maybe sortable by title, date and format?

DS

Danyl Strype Wed 2 Apr 2014

Hmm. I did the usual delete-my-comment-in-order-to-edit-it but it took me to an error page telling me:

The change you wanted was rejected.

Maybe you tried to change something you didn't have access to.

Return to your home page

TE

Tobias Eigen Tue 22 Apr 2014

+1 this is lovely - if it were still possible to vote for it I would do so! Really this should be put up as a community charter and all members here should have an opportunity to sign it!

AI

Alanna Irving Tue 22 Apr 2014

Totally agree @tobiaseigen ! I'm excited for this feature to get developed so that kind of explicit agreement is easy to do :)

TE

Tobias Eigen Tue 22 Apr 2014

@alanna wow you guys are far along :) so impressed.

JW

Jochen Walter Thu 24 Jul 2014

Great. I agree (sorry, but the decision is closed ;o))

JK

Joop Kiefte (LaPingvino) Sat 30 Aug 2014

I would suggest taking a look at the Discourse forum software for comunity-based software-aided moderation. Also the inclusion of document-creation software (e.g. the recently source-published open source Rizzoma) could be helpful in creating next steps.