20210611-Proposal: Code of Conduct Act

Silmeria - 1:57 AM - Jun 11, 2021
Code of Conduct Act An act to establish the Code of Conduct within the Kodiak Republic’s community spaces. We recognise that all citizens and guests of our Republic should be able to engage and interact with one another safely, enjoyably, and free of harassment. Article 1 – Community Spaces 1.1 - A community space is defined as spaces that are officially operated by The Kodiak Republic. 1.2 - The Kodiak Republic forums, Discord server(s), Nationstates pages and RMB are official community spaces. Article 2 – Conduct 2.1 - No persons shall be discriminated against due to age, disability, ethnicity, gender, identity, race, religion, sexuality, and socioeconomic status. 2.2 - Harassment is a violation of community standards and is not tolerated. This includes harassment through private means such as forum PMs, telegrams, and discord PMs should complaints be made in that regard to Administrators and Moderators. 2.3 - Baiting, insults, and deliberate provocation towards argument and conflict is not tolerated. 2.4 - Spam posting/messages should be kept to relevant sections appropriate for spamming. 2.5 - Deliberate spamming or posting in any area of the community relating to, but not limited to, pornography, disturbing media, illegal content, advertisement, or content that is malicious and/or causes security risks to a person or their computers/devices is strictly prohibited. 2.6 - To enable a community that is safe for all, we run with a PG-13 policy in all instances of interaction. Keep the community safe for work. 2.7 - The safety of our community is important, and therefore it is prohibited to violate a person’s privacy, and to post real-life identifying information of other persons, otherwise known as doxing. 2.7.1 - It is the prerogative of any person to share their own information, such as social media accounts. 2.8 - Attempting to access another person’s account, or otherwise impersonate another person is prohibited. Article 3 – Enforcement 3.1 - Administrators and Moderators on all platforms that constitute a community space may enforce the code of conduct at their discretion and may involve:

a) A single and final warning for minor infractions. b)  Temporarily disabling posting or chat privileges, such as muting on Discord or removal of posting privileges on forums. c) Temporary bans of up to 1-3 days. d)  Permanent bans 3.2 – An appeal regarding an enforcement decision may be requested to an Administrator. The Administrator may overturn the decision, or reject the appeal at their discretion. 3.3 - All bans, and removal of posting/chat privileges that reach the length of at least a temporary ban may be appealed to the Kodiak Courts. 3.4 - All enforcement decisions that relate to a ban will be recorded in a public ledger with relevant details, reasoning, and decision maker(s) listed. 3.5 - Evidence supporting enforcement decisions must be saved and produced should the Courts require it. Last updated 15 June 2021 Contributors - Amber Silmeria Delacroix-Grey (Author), Martang B. Eðeltreow, Rykkland

Silmeria - 2:00 AM - Jun 11, 2021
It is 2AM so there may be errors.

Please feel free to comment/suggest/express views.

I particularly want to highlight Article 3 - Enforcement. My thinking behind allowing Admins/Mods to enforce the code of conduct is for a few reasons:

1) Admins/Mods should be selected by the GA, and should be trust worthy and fair. They should also be removeable (with the exception of root). This should be covered by another act, including if there are any distinctions between forum/discord/etc (probably not to be honest).

2) Not being able to enforce the code of conduct can be detrimental to the community - for example if questionable spam occurs, or a member is being harassed.

3) Punishments are appealable with the Courts - or at least the major punishments are in this case.



Regarding evidence - I think it may be impractical to record evidence in the forum constantly for all punishments hence I only suggest evidence be saved as a matter of procedure should the courts require it - but let me know if people think otherwise. Also being aware of privacy of victims.

Eðeltreow - 3:04 AM - Jun 11, 2021
I would propose dropping the words "questionable and" from 2.5, since that's not easy to define and "illegal" covers the base.

The saving of evidence should be easy to do by moving offending posts or posting screenshots into a section of the forum that's visible only to admins (and justices), preserving privacy.

Silmeria - 11:10 AM - Jun 11, 2021
Eðeltreow wrote: ↑ Jun 11, 2021 I would propose dropping the words "questionable and" from 2.5, since that's not easy to define and "illegal" covers the base.

The saving of evidence should be easy to do by moving offending posts or posting screenshots into a section of the forum that's visible only to admins (and justices), preserving privacy.

Edited 2.5, good point!

That's an excellent suggestion about evidence, I left the clause as is as that's more a matter of procedure that I agree should definitely be done. If people think it should be explicitly written as such though let me know!

Silmeria - 2:06 PM - Jun 13, 2021
I've been thinking about the legitimacy of warnings, and how toothless they tend to be. I am of the opinion, perhaps now that I am older and "wiser" (hah), that a good healthy community doesn't tolerate any 'rot' so to speak, i.e., things that this community is against, especially those that are counter to someone's health and safety.

I propose we either:

1) Remove warnings as an option for enforcement, leave that to be an organic thing where if an Admin/Mod sees something happen (that hasn't reached the point of violation yet), they can simply say cut it out.

or

2) Limit warnings to one warning. For anyone with any level of maturity should not need to be told multiple times that they aren't adhering to community values.

I am leaning towards 1) myself.

Rykkland - 2:20 PM - Jun 13, 2021
I think initially "warning" referred to the on-site warning system. Though I do think we can afford a single warning; sometimes people need to be calibrated to their own behaviour so as to be able change it.

Silmeria - 9:49 PM - Jun 15, 2021
After consideration, and absent any further opinion for the moment, I have made alterations to specify a 'Single and final' warning for minor infractions. Wording is deliberate, if it is a clear cut case then a ban would be prudent for major offences. I also wanted to avoid accidentally making it sound like a 'step by step' progression.

Silmeria - 2:22 PM - Jun 19, 2021
Should we bring this to vote now? Or would you all like to wait until after elections? I don't think it necessary to wait however given the GA is everyone.

Rykkland - 2:24 PM - Jun 19, 2021
Yes I don't see why not. I'll wait and see if anyone disagrees, and I'll put it up tonight (about 8 hours)

Silmeria - 5:09 PM - Jun 19, 2021
Excellent! Especially now that we are getting members coming back/new members, we really ought to set our community standards up front, and hopefully this is pretty transparent in terms of this isn't just about NS conduct - it's about community conduct.

Rykkland - 8:51 PM - Jun 19, 2021
This bill is now up for vote. Please do so here:

for-vote-the-code-of-conduct-act-629-t9945.html