Talk.TiddlyWiki Terms of Use suggestions

Meta
#1

  • If not already setup (I can’t remember now), terms of use should require reading and acceptance before allowing request of Talk.TiddlyWiki account.

  • Terms of Use should include a “de-escalation of conflict” guide

Ideas for content in a “de-escalation of conflict” guide.

Definitions:

Aggrievee (or whatever you want to call it, I don’t know what else to call it): Somebody who feels personally slighted, demeaned, attacked, belittled, humiliated, discriminated, (… I can’t think of a catch all concise word/expression for a whole list of things) in a post (or reply to a post by the aggrieved individual).

Aggriever: somebody who in a post or a reply to a post, intentionally or unintentionally, is obviously (or is perceived to be) causing distress to somebody else (i.e. that other person feels aggrieved).

Humans are a diverse bunch: different cultures, different languages, possible traumatic life experiences, possible physical or cognitive disabilities, different levels of sensitivity, different interpretations of words, different levels of technical know-how, different understandings of what is and isn’t in scope related to one thing, etc. etc. etc…

It is impossible to eliminate all potential of being an aggriever, but we do the best we can to avoid aggrieving somebody.

Don’t aggrieve others. But if you do … Should you, whatever the circumstances are, unintended or intended, aggrieve somebody: it is your responsibility to apologize, acknowledge how your post/reply aggrieved the other person. If you had no intention to aggrieve, then explain your intention.

If you are the aggrievee, you should say so in a way that does not aggrieve the other person. Declare exactly how you feel, and indicate (if the aggrievor replied to a post of your’s) what your intentions were/are. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your responsibility to yourself is to speak your truth and your responsibility to the community is to do so respectfully. As an aggriever or as an aggrievee: you both have a responsibility to de-escalate conflict.

The de-escalation process should publicly involve 1 reply by the aggrievee explaining why aggrieved, and 1 reply by aggriever with apology (or nothing if you just can’t bring yourself to do that good thing). If both want to each have 1 more reply to each other as “hand shakes” to make the peace: cool.

But don’t draw out a sluggfest, or lovefest ad nauseum. If you must drag either of those out, do so somewhere else starting off with a clear explanation of what you two are doing. So that if others are getting some kind of twisted entertainment value out of it, they can follow the two of you. (i.e.: get an octagon, or get a room, will ya?)

#2

Thanks for the thoughtful post @Charlie_Veniot. I do believe that we need to clearly articulate expectations of behaviour within the community, and have consistent processes for dealing with issues that arise. I’d be happy for us to adopt/adapt this material into our moderation guidelines.

I’ve been planning to make a home for these kind of community matters on https://tiddlywiki.org/, and to that end have posted an initial cut at a “Code of Conduct” tiddler. It’s somewhat higher level than your material, but I think it all fits together:

https://tiddlywiki.org/#Code%20of%20Conduct

#3

I think one key to this is for an aggrieved person (Bob) to privately message the person (Alice) about the words that seems to be offensive , and most importantly ask them a question, “Did they realise what they wrote has made me feel (explain your feeling’s) or say it reads as if (how you read it)”. This gives Alice the ability to edit their post/reply to both your satisfaction. All we see then is a minor edit, or an apology by Alice’s.

We should always discuss the “words used” and not the person, Even in private messages.

Better that a dispute occurs privately than publicly in a flame war.

If there is no resolution then a minimalist reply in the original thread such as;

  • I personally feel “this reply” makes me feel (explain your feeling’s) or it reads as if (how you read it)

Remember to always try and make the words used the subject of the dispute not a person or persons.

  • The problem with lodging a complaint in the public thread is it is all there for others to see, and this is why problems escalate. Try and let Alice know privately, and apologise or edit the public post/reply. If you offend Alice back publicly, Alice may attack you publicly (but should not have).
  • If Alice does not respond in a timely manner see above “If there is no resolution then a minimalist reply”. But do so in a way you raise how it feels or is technically incorrect, but not in a way that Forces Alice to respond. Be prepared to edit or delete this later if you resolve the matter privately with Alice.
#4

It’s a good start. Here’s two others I found quickly.

I’ve been spending a lot of time with OpenStreetMap and only recently did they open up a Discourse instance. It’s been a slow start, but this topic of code of conduct is not a new subject, so there’s plenty to draw from. I think it should be short and concise so we are explicit about our intentions with the community we are trying to create. Also perhaps I would suggest moving this thread to the meta category.

#5

Great, thanks.

The material that I really liked was Drupal’s:

https://www.drupal.org/dcoc

And:

https://www.drupal.org/about/values-and-principles

1 Like
#6

I should clarify that I’ve been working in the background for a few months on the Code of Conduct and related material.

Another source that I found helpful are these notes from an Open Source Community Manager formerly at GitHub

1 Like