How We Use Loomio (Meta-discussion/ mediation/ moderation space)

Having given this some thought, I actually think @petercummuskey might be right. Any comment on our Loomio group represents only the opinion of the author, not the party. The comments were made, for better or for worse, and removing them wouldn't change that. I'll leave the proposal up for a few more days so others can express their views.

What's really important is to take action to improve commenting behaviour going forward. I have no interest in being part of online discussions in which bullying language, personal attacks, repetitive appeals to authority, and shouting people down instead of considering their evidence, are acceptable behaviour. I do feel we need a Code of Conduct (see the discussion here https://www.loomio.org/d/GX820gfl/code-of-conduct) which includes sanctions which can be applied to members violating it, and how a binding decision is made to apply those sanctions.

Since you show no sign of dropping the poisoning threat incident @andrewmcpherson, even though it's totally irrelevant to policy discussion on the use of 1080 in our native bush, let's address this.

1) Fonterra and Federated Farmers reported receiving an envelop of pure 1080 powder along with a threat to contaminate infant formula

2) they passed this threat onto the Police who are investigating, as you'd expect, by questioning anyone they know to be opposed to 1080.

So firstly, nobody has been convicted in a court of law of making this threat. AFAIK nobody has even been charged. So for you to publicly accuse the members of the Ban1080 party is not only conspiracy theory on your part, it is also defamation (specifically libel).
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander

Having libel against members of other parties on our official online Policy Group, and leaving it unmoderated, may or may not expose us to legal action, but it is not a good look. This is part of the reason I proposed removing the comments.

Secondly, it may be true that the threat was indeed delivered by anti-1080 activists as claimed, but there are other equally plausible explanations. It may have been delivered by someone who supports 1080 (perhaps someone who makes money from its use) to smear anti-1080 activists. It may have been delivered by someone who wanted to give Police an excuse to increase surveillance of anti-1080 activists, akin to what happened with the "terror raids" against Tuhoe sovereignty activists in 2008 (see the doco Operation8).

IMHO two things make anti-1080 activists the least likely culprits. One, the fact that it was pure 1080. This is an extremely toxic and highly controlled substance, available only from a handful of manufacturers (partly because NZ is one of the few places in the world where it's still used). Where would anti-1080 activists get pure 1080 from? Had the threat come with an envelope of poison pellets of the type that is actually used in the bush, this would be more believable.

Two, the entire opposition to 1080 is based on opposition to poisoning living things in wild areas (including native fauna), and fears it may be poisoning humans (see Dr Scanlon and Dr Weavers comments in the video linked on the 1080 discussion page). So the idea that anti1080 activists would poison babies to prevent poisoning is about as plausible as the idea that peace activists would assassinate politicians to prevent wars.

For a case of Libel to be successful, it has to be proven untrue. As a former boss tried to imply that he would file a Libel suit against me, I pointed out that it would have to be a falsehood to win a Libel suit. He didn't file the suit.
Furthermore, if anyone from outside the party was daft enough to file a Libel suit then they would file it against the person, myself, making the claims, and not the party.
The fact that they would lose the Libel claim would possibly deter the potential plaintiffs if they are as rational as you claim they are. However, having met them personally at Backbenches some time ago, I remain confident they are as extreme as I have said they are.

Finally, I note that there are many popular sci-fi stories about time-travelling back to stop a certain dictator from starting a war. Everything from the Red Alert game to Doctor Who has covered it, so it is not entirely implausible as you claim.

There is another proposal this week in the code of conduct thread : https://www.loomio.org/d/GX820gfl/code-of-conduct

This addresses the balance required for freedom of speech versus harmful digital communications.

To understand my position it is most important to understand that I value the freedom of speach very, very highly as a right to speak out and make a point without being threatened by sanctions for doing so.

Freedom of Speech certainly doesn't imply a duty to listen to anything that is thrown at you:

If Person A and Person B are talking about Subjext X and Person C comes along and enters the conversation and starts talkig about Subject Z, then it is perfectly all right for A and B to tell C that he may either engage in a conversation about Subject X or look for someone else to talk to about Subject Z (or in case of loomio: to start a new discussion about Subject Z) - if someone wanted to call this censorship it would simply be insane.

Even if C would talk about X, but A and B had agreed to some rules and they could show C in what his/her comments would be in violation to those rules and would suggest that C may adopt those rules in his/hers further comments or otherwise should look for someone else to talk to - this would also not be censorship or violating Freedom of Speech.

Actually quite the contrary: allowing C to fill the channel with just anything would mean allowing C to censor the established dialogue and this indeed would be: allowing C to violate the Freedom of Speech of others.

That's why I fundamentally reject references to Freedom of Speech as a valid argument to prevent us from defining, exercising and enforcing a communication standard we feel comfortable with.

For the concrete case in the 1080 discussion I recognise that @andrewmcpherson has done all of the following:

• instead of making any statement about the topic of discussing the practice of aerial drops of 1080 into our bushland he has been talking about completely unrelated topics.
• he has actually not been talking but ranting without providing a single substantial argument about whatever he was (and still is) ranting about.
• he has reiterated the ever same statements in other existing threads where they are off-topic.
• he has been asked to separate out his new topic into a separate thread and change his language, but hasn't done anything like that.
• wherever the
  • lack of substance in the 'argument'
  • the harmful placement of his comments
  • the harmful language and accusations have been pointed out to him in a sensitive manner, his reactions where only to reiterate the same rather than responding to the statement at hand.

In short: many of @andrewmcpherson most recent comments are:
* flooding the channels,

* off-topic
* non-responsive
* distractive
* abusive

I believe that all coming together very well justifies some cleaning up of the current mess.

More than that it clearly shows our urgent need for an agreement upon a CoC and a conflict resolution mechanism.

@zl4bv I am not aware of any comment that was attacking @andrewmcpherson personally. All criticism that I know of was directed against explicit comments; and altering or deleting those comments would have been an easy way for @andrewmcpherson to resolve the issues at any time (which he actually has done in one case). So the statement: ' Attacking people for their attacks on other people...' is not an accurate description on what is going on.

If you are really serious about needing to use the block option (which I hope you reconsider), I would kindly like to ask you to engage into the process of discussing the constructive solutions that you demand.

@petercummuskey I like the sentiment in your comment. But for the reasons outlined above I don't think that we have a problem with Freedom of Speech or censorship here.

A long time ago I had thought of a Karma system in loomio also and made suggestions to the loomio team. But firstly I have learned that loomio is designed as a consensus platform and a Karma system would be unsuitable for that concept. But secondly and more importantly would a Karma system be a much harsher regiment and definitely be a tool of censorship with less transparency and consistency but with in-built opinion-bubble-protection system. Far worse than anything that is proposed here.

@hubatmcjuhes my understanding of our use of the block was to signal that we need to re-think the proposal - a signal like a canary in a mine - that we need to consider a different approach achieving our goals.

You're right that there are no comments attacking Andrew, and that was not what I was referring to. I was referring to the proposal itself. Whenever someone else makes destructive comments or god forbid have a difference of opinion, are we going to make a big fuss, go on a witch hunt, and create proposals to remove their comments too. Without a proper framework to govern this process I don't think this is a healthy approach. On the bright side, I guess, at least we're not trying to ban Andrew from the community too.

Constructive solutions you say? How about a code of conduct? Something that clearly states how we expect people to engage and defines exactly what kind of engagement is unacceptable. This wouldn't have to be exhaustive - that would cause a maintenance burden - but at least something that we could measure against an individuals' contributions and demonstrate that the contributions are not acceptable within the scope of this community.

Yes I'm aware that there are already discussions about creating a CoC - I've even been trying to encourage a CoC for about a year now. But we need to ensure that the creation of a CoC actually happens, otherwise this discussion will become yet another that results in no actions.

Thank you @zl4bv for your explanation.

My understanding about the block option is that it means something along the line: 'If this goes through I have difficulties seeing myself as part of this community anymore'. But I can see that former usages of the block in our community support your interpretation.

I believe all those worries that you express, setting a precedence case that may spread uncertainty are well worth taking serious. I suggest to address those worries by really quickly but thoroughly decide upon a CoC and due processes to make clear what is expected and what to expect for future cases.

I believe that the current decision at hand is still justified as we don't have those rules yet. Amongst other reasons for that lack is that we have often argued that in case of a conflict we can decide as a group on an ad-hoc basis. This is now what we are doing here. The comments in question may expose the whole group to legal threats.

This could be an even more realistic threat given that @andrewmcpherson is making public internal classified information of a governmental agency. Furthermore I am sure that @andrewmcpherson 's source would not appreciate the disclosure here as it might make him a traget of disciplinary measures as well. Andrew has given enough personal information about his source that a superior could probably already identify him.

It is sound and fair for us as a group to use the means that we have at the present point in time to decide to protect us and the source by removing those comments from public reception. This is urgent and serious and very concrete and not meant to establish a general regime to deal with unwanted content of any kind.