I think the CofC needs to apply to the party as a whole; all online channels which exist in the party's name, and all subgroups including working groups and local groups. Thus, as I said in my previous comment on the topic, it should be short and simple, explaining the kind of behaviour we want to encourage, in a tone that models said behaviour. I will post a suggested text in the 'context box' at the top of the page.

I agree that the CoC must be seen as applicable to all online channels of the party. When I have been suggesting to only focus on the broader discussion group level here I was thinking of the reach of a pro-active team of moderators that act based on a dedicated policy.
This is so that if a small group of activists that might even meet face-to-face regularly sets up their issue specific sub group, they don't need to feel controlled and supervised by the mediator team when actually they can maintain their comfort level easily themselves.
Again, the executive part of the CoC should contain a pathway for members of a subgroup to elevate a conflict to the mediator team where the groups resolution process has failed.

I agree with most of what @hubatmcjuhes says here. Just to clarify though, I don't envision a "mediator team" with special powers, rather that a very general CofC apply party-wide (which boils down to "be excellent to each other"), and that each online discussion space and face-to-face group is responsible for their own moderation, with the CofC as a common reference point.

FYI a previous discussion here about bullying using the internet. Ironically, Andrew McP and I seem to find ourselves on opposite ends of the argument now :)
https://www.loomio.org/d/aDUw8uX9/bullying-using-the-internet

@andrewmcpherson We are not usually in the habit to put up decisions without having mentioned and discussed the matter beforehand. The actual decision is then seeking confirmation of what appears to be the consensus amongst those having engaged into the discussion.

Please take a look at this draft and make edits (add, update, delete) where you see appropriate. If you disagree with someone else's edit, please discuss it here. http://piratepad.net/1ZVeCwW4v9

@zl4bv can I suggest using the Context Box at the top of this page instead of a PiratePad? EtherPads have their uses but they can be edited by anybody who has the link (publicly visible here), whereas the Context Box can only be edited by members of this Loomio group. [edit: as pointed out by Ben, this is a private discussion, not a public one as I claimed]

I think the first thing we need to test consensus on is this: are there any circumstances where it is desirable for a comment on this Loomio group to be deleted by moderators? Peter, for one, seems to think not (as per his comment in the mediation discussion). [edit: I've misrepresented Peter here, based on his response to my proposal in 'How We Use Loomio', without having read his latest comment there] I think moderators deleting comments under a clearly defined CofC is ok, but that it's more important to make sure the commenter understands why their comments were inappropriate, so they comment more appropriately in future, in which case they may choose to delete their own comment. An ounce of prevention (and in this case relationship building) is worth a pound of cure and all that.

This discussion is visible only to group members, and I haven't had any issues with this approach in the past.

I'm very concerned that Loomio has become our one-tool-fits-all solution: decision-making tool, discussion board (forum), note-taking tool, and now being proposed a document editor. Having too many tools also brings problems as managing them all and organising logins for them all for all users in quite a pain, but I think we could balance between the two extremes better than we are now.

EtherPad is great for writing for documents because, well, it was designed for this purpose but more specifically because it allows multiple people to make edits at the same time as well as providing a history (yes I know Loomio supports description history but EtherPad's history is more accessible). Also, if you're using the rich formatting features of EtherPad then the exporting features are extremely valuable.

I'm also not sure of the purpose of a Membership Rules subgroup with only 6 members. Only subgroup members can comment on discussions or take positions on proposals in that subgroup. Because this discussion affects all party members, I propose that whoever is the admin of the Membership Rules subgroup move this discussion into the main group, so all members can participate.

@strypey I second your motion to move this core discussion to the topmost level. Hence I have moved this topic accordingly. It is still group-private but it is now visible to all group members without further ado.

@zl4bv as you know I have advocated for a suite of tools, or sandwich as I outlined earlier, for a long time.I particularly think that a loomio thread delegating a task to a piratepad is an excellent fit. Particularly because I share @strypey s worries about too many accounts, logins, platforms. A link to a PiartePad in a loomio thread is not establishing a new platform or context. It only adds missing functionality to the loomio platform. Thanks to the TimeLine functionality a nasty visitor could maybe be annoying but actually not really destructive. A risk that we very well can bear at the present point in time.

But this is all more or less off-topic here, so I will proceed here.

@zl4bv I just wanted to make some cosmetic changes to the text you have put up to the piratepad a day ago and maybe let some of the very good ideas of the Discourse folk that you have directed us to float in.
But meanwhile it has changed from a good starting point to pretty much near to EXACTLY IT. Good job man, thank you for that effort.
Unfortunately we have to wait for 4 days until we can decide upon it, but this draft is worth the wait. Cheers.

I've just tidied up and reordered what was on the PiratePad a bit, and copied the result to the Context Box at the top of this page. What do folks think? I'm guessing there will be a couple of modifications that some people may take issue with, but I'm willing to offer an intellectual defence for them.

Sorry I didn't respond to the proposal in time...

In regards to the outcome:

There are some gaps to fill, and a few things that we probably need to discuss.

Where do you see gaps that need filling, @strypey? Perhaps that would be a good place to start subsequent discussion.

As mentioned in my last comment, @zl4bv see the Context Box at the top of the page, or the PiratePad, for my suggested changes.

I am very happy with the current version and find it near to agreeable as it stands.

I am still a little bit worried that, how we expect to deal with situations, still allows a //troll// to be effective in harming our communication within the framework. But I trust that we deal differently with such a situation when necessary.
After all we will review the CoC after 6 month and do some refining then, if required.

I do feel that it is necessary to mention that we will immediately remove statements that clearly violate the privacy rights of others. I don't find it acceptable that one has to publish three subsequent defamatory comments to be forced into a cool-down mode of 24 hrs, but the defamatory comments are left to be publicly available for the victims lifetime and longer.
Such a clause is important for me to be able to agree.

I have added such a clause to the proposal text in the description box.

BTW: Does someone has an answer to one or more of the following questions:
- Why is this discussion private, shouldn't it be public?
- Did I start this discussion as a private one?
- Is there something like a log of changes to the discussions meta settings?

@hubatmcjuhes yes, I agree it should be public. This can be changed by clicking the settings cog at the far right of the title bar, clicking 'edit discussion', and scrolling down to the bottom where the public/ private radio buttons are.

No, I don't think there's a user-viewable log of changes to discussion settings, although perhaps there would be an auto-message in the comment thread of a discussion if it was changed from public to private or vice versa? Something to discuss with the Loomio devs?

Edit: I just fixed a couple of typos, and added a section describing a Hospitality Working Group who will be responsible for moderation. Thoughts?

For matters deemed sensitive, eg involving personal privacy, deliberations will take place in a channel open to any party member (eg Mumble meeting), with an appropriately redacted summary place in the public-facing forum.

Do we really want to allow discussions of personal private matters with any member of the party present? Surely it would be suitable to rephrase to have the discussion in a closed environment with only the relevant (or trusted) members present - but keep the statement about reporting any outcome(s) back to the group.

Also, for the 1.0 version perhaps we mandate a review earlier than six months?

In concurrence with @zl4bv as mentioned directly above. I suggest that we have a moderation working group.

It seems that previous comment was covered in the loomio page at the top, not on the piratepad. Apologies.

If you are threatened with violence in any way then please feel free to inform any peace officer you may believe can help you.

I want to change peace officer back to police. Threats aren't something we should treat lightly, and I believe they should be escalated beyond our party.

Violent threats are one of the few things that should never be concealed in the name of privacy.

Not all victims are willing to be public about what they've been subjected to. We should be respectful of this. (- I'm not encouraging people to remain quiet either though)

I did have a death threat by Luke McKee, so I sent all following emails from him to delete automatically.

"I want to change peace officer back to police. Threats aren’t something we should treat lightly"

In my experience police are the people most likely to be making violent threats. I suggested "peace officer" as a compromise, but frankly, I think the whole section could be chopped. I don't think a party CofC should be giving any advice about things that "should be escalated beyond our party", for the same reason it shouldn't give advice about what to do if you're raped by a party member (see recent news); it's not about expected standard of interpersonal behaviour for party members, and it's beyond the scope of the document.

Edit: just to clarify, where it says;
"Violent threats are one of the few things that should never be concealed in the name of privacy."

I assume it refers to the privacy of the person doing the threatening, not the person being threatened.

I agree with @strypey here.

The CoC is to give a clear indication of where we define the fine line between contributions to a free and open discussion that weaves us together on the one hand side and disruptive, irritating, discouraging, alienating, ... inputs that split us apart on the other hand side.

The CoC doesn't need to address any cases of the wide field of clearly inappropriate, even unlawful behaviour.

@andrewreitemeyer

However I think conduct that brings the party in to disrepute should be a part of our code of conduct.

I am not so sure about such a clause. It is very, very vague and one could try to use it to gag a particular discussion in claiming that discussing a particular matter could put the whole party into disrepute. And instead of discussing the original subject you now have a discussion about the persons interested in that subject being valuable members or a liability - which, no matter what the outcome, at least completely disrupts the original discussion. Like kind of a super-ad-hominem attack that forces everyone else to participate in the one way or the other.

@strypey I think for finalising a decision it is consensus that the discussions description box is best to refer to. Also for this concrete proposal it appears that the current version in the discussion box is in much better shape than the PiratePad.

Can I suggest and kindly ask you to close the current decision and put up the same thing again with the only difference being to refer to the version of the description, please?

I would like to agree to that one.

The proposal says:
"I propose we adopt as our Code of Conduct v.1 the text in the Context Box at the top of this page"

The reference to the PiratePad is to establish the origin of the draft (so people can refer to the edit timeline there etc), but I specifically said:
"the current contents of this link, as of about a week ago"

As far as I can see, what you are asking for is what's there.

Sorry, I havn't read carefully enough.

@andrewmcpherson can you please clarify what you mean by:
"avoidance of continual strawman objections of little merit"

@strypey not everyone has studied philosophy, nor should we expect or demand a subjective analysis of statements to be backed by dialectic arguments of merit.
There have on a couple of other threads been discussions where what I have discussed has eventually been confirmed in the media, yet apparently my arguments were declared strawmen at the time.
In any case, I welcome the code of conduct draft.

@petercummuskey I am aware of only two change requests:
1) Taking the section in square brackets out of the CoC to discuss and include it's contents in the new constitution instead,
2) Taking out the passage about treats of violence.

I expect that once we have agreed on this basic version, we will have separate decisions on those change requests, which are both in full agreement of the general sentiment of the current text but suggest what is deemed improvements in details of an already agreeable text.

Can you outline the patches that you would like to go into an improved version?

In most versioning schemes I'm aware of @petercummuskey , 0.1 is the very first bit of code in the repository, pre-alpha and not really usable. For this version of the CofC, I would accept anything from 0.7 to 0.9 ;)

Actually, I find Ubuntu's date-based versioning system makes more sense for documents. So this would be version 03/07/15. It's a solid start, but futher additions/ redactions/ refinements are welcome on the PiratePad link, which can be considered when we review in 3 months.

Can someone please put up the new official Code of Conduct on our live website?

Edit: corrected the timeframe for the next review

In the CoC we mention the possibility to suspend a member from our communication channels (24 hours at first, then for longer terms if required).
Does anybody know how this could actually be exercised with loomio if we ever had to?

AFAIK the only way to actually stop someone posting in a Loomio group is to remove them from the group. Ideally, if a member of the HWG (Hospitality Working Group) publicly tells someone their speaking rights are suspended, the person would voluntarily comply with this out of respect for the work HWG does in keeping party forums pleasant and productive, by holding members to the CofC. A refusal to comply with a suspension could be seen as cause for extending the suspension, and anyone who behaves badly enough to get a month long suspension should probably be removed from the Loomio group until that month is up.

We have had a request from Robert Frittmann, our latest member to clear up the narrative on the oldest threads going back 2 years or more.
(Here is a full copy of my reply on https://www.loomio.org/d/A0mrXzcH/rules-and-processes-for-our-use-of-loomio)

As one of the co-founders I have to agree with @robertfrittmann that we do seem to have cycles of 2 year discussions still active.
When we had the website forums previous to using loomio, we also had the same problem of some threads becoming difficult to navigate as comments would be replied to months after posts were made, even from pages before.

I recall the old board decided that was a contributing reason to abandoning the forums for discussion, and moving to loomio in the hope that things would improve.
It seems clear to me that the party needs a narrative rule on undead threads, or at the least if some member restarts a discussion, that it needs a fresh thread if there is a gap of six months or more since the last comment in that thread.
I will make a thread with this proposal as a narrative rule in our hospitality meta discussion group to consider more reasonable approaches to discussions.

• Please note that I anticipate having my regular broadband restored by Thursday afternoon (19/5) so I may only be able to reply in a few days.

Hence I will make a proposal for the narrative of threads to have an expiry date of six months or more without fresh comments, if that condition is reached then a fresh thread must be started to ensure that conversations are navigable for all members.

The "Narrative refresh" proposal has been closed, as it's not really relevant to this thread. I will re-open it in the thread where the discussion it emerged from is taking place.

@strypey My reasoning for placing the narrative refresh proposal originally was that we have clearly begun to go beyond clarity of reference in some threads, there has been some confusion in reactivated conversations over the this year, and earlier.

I have updated my "agree" comment with a more helpful description in that thread.
(I still consider this should be a meta rule about CoC in effect, because revival of stale threads have caused significant discord and confusion on several occasions, not just this year. Hence, it maybe worth reconsidering as a CoC rule if the proposal passes. )

I would suggest that this current proposal is completely irrelevant so long as @strypey takes the liberty to alter my comments on most of the threads which he created, as I effectively no longer have the right to have my comments remain unaltered.
I would further suggest that this conduct itself is a highly questionable abuse of privileges not granted by the CoC.
Regardless of which, the CoC itself does not provide for an immediate escalation to a third suspension simply based on personal opinion, hence the proposal is clearly out of order itself.

• Such altering of comments may or may not have happened, and may or may not have been justifiable or an abuse
• To establish that it was an abuse, first specific example(s) must be identified, and explained why it amounts to an abuse. (And then a right of reply etc.)
• The original comments will still be on record in people's email alerts, in case the text of an original comment is disputed.
• Are you suggesting Loomio is not a suitable medium for the right of reply? What alternative would you be more comfortable with? (Noting that as yet there is no specific case to reply to)

I would suggest that this current proposal is completely irrelevant so long as @strypey takes the liberty to alter my comments on most of the threads which he created, as I effectively no longer have the right to have my comments remain unaltered.

Proof of this @andrewmcpherson ? This is very serious if so.

@Strypey - I think the responses so far on this proposal are a sufficient indication. It doesn't need to run 5 more days.

@andrewmcpherson continues to demonstrate a complete lack of restraint or self-awareness in his use of this forum.

• If a member started a thread calling me out for unacceptable behaviour, I would give other members a chance to discuss the matter before commenting to correct any claims I felt were inaccurate, in a calm and reasonable tone. In this thread, Andrew McP's tactic is to wade in straight away, attempting to shout down the concerned member, and hijack the discussion with filibustering proposals.

• When a proposal is made in which I have a conflict of interest, I abstain, as I did in that thread. Andrew McP not only takes a position, but even attempts to block such proposals, despite the obvious conflict of interest.

@zl4bv

I'm not getting involved with playground arguments. They only distract us from achieving what a political party ought to achieve.

This is precisely why we need to be able to address misuse of this forum, not just pretend it isn't happening.

@adambullen

don't swing the ban hammer

This is a ridiculous misrepresentation of this proposal, which is time-bound, and limited to one subgroup. Much as it would make participation here more pleasant for me if @andrewmcpherson was banned from this Loomio group, this is not what I'm proposing, or even what I want. I just want to be treated with some respect, and for discussions about moderation to take place without being hijacked by the person whose behaviour may (or may not) require moderation.

This is precisely why we need to be able to address misuse of this forum, not just pretend it isn't happening.

My understanding of many online communities' intent for a CoC is to promote inclusivity amongst the potentially diverse group of members in that community and to provide a mechanism in which members that are unwelcoming against other members of the community can be safely ejected/banned from the community.

Re-reading our CoC this seems no different. Yet I observe this being used against a member, who from my point of view presents many fallacy-rich arguments, to make that member unwelcome in some or all of our community.

So forgive me if I don't want to be involved in this utter bullshit - which now seems to the spectacle issue of the party - but I have better ways to spent my time. I'm sure if any other members, like myself, are here because they support policies x, y, z and would like to see their ongoing development with respect to changes in legislature and general societal mood, then they'll agree with me when I say I'd rather pretend this fiasco is not happening if that means we can get some actual policy development or platform development happening.

As far as this issue goes I'd like people to educate themselves in a list of fallacies and suggest that people look to improve their argument technique. I see no need for stronger action in this instance unless another member wishes to come forward in public (within the community; not necessarily to everyone on the internet) or in private to suggestion they have been harassed or made to feel unwelcome within the community.

Back in August, when I decided to take a break from the party, I wrote a letter that at the time I decided not to share with the party. Here's a paragraph that I continue to consider relevant, and would justify me crawling back under a rock:

The desire for change exists within the party, but always blocked by lack of
understanding, difference of opinion, or a lack of volunteers to take
ownership of the change. The very things that make the party unique are the
things that will make the party continue to fail. The endless attempt at direct
democracy slows us down as we attempt to make every person decide and agree
upon every little decision that could affect the party or its image. The
implicit refusal to accept individuality which leads to the refusal to
compromise. It has become an endless cycle that seems unlikely to be broken
anytime soon. There has been some memorable events in the party's past, but
perhaps it is time to let it go.

@andrewmcpherson

This is pathetically based on a personal dislike for my opinions.

This is yet another example of the tactic revealed by this freudian slip by Andrew:

"I can not be bothered playing the victim to bizarre comments any longer." (emphasis mine)

Once again, Andrew can smear me on this forum with no consequences, accusing me of misusing moderation process to suppress dissenting opinions. Does anybody else believe that this is my motive here?!? I have admin powers that allow me to just delete any comment made here, with no due process whatsoever. So does anyone else who is an admin. If I wanted to suppress Andrew's opinions, I would just delete his comments, and claim ignorance. Why would I waste my time with carefully reasoned moderation proposals? If I wanted to suppress his opinion, why would I only propose a limited and temporary suspension of speaking rights in one sub-group and on one topic that seems to be triggering for him, rather than a total ban from the Loomio group?

Reflecting on Andrew's increasingly desparate attempts to take control of any discourse relating to health, not only in this Loomio group but now another one, I think I hit the nail on the head in the last two paragraphs of this comment. There's no reasoning with the unreasonable. Since Andrew refuses to pull his head in (despite his comments to the contrary), and since every time I log into Loomio I am subjected to yet another round of personal attacks and increasingly wild accusations, and since the membership have stood by and let this go on for weeks and refused to mediate or moderate effectively, my only option is to withdraw from this Loomio group.

Since this is the forum decision-making platform for the party, and I'm only willing to be a member of a party where I can participate in decision-making (otherwise I might as well have stayed in the Internet Party), that effectively means I am resigning from the party. When the party has a constitution, clear rules about the use of the NZ Pirates Loomio group, including rules for a constructive policy development process, and a functioning moderation process, I will consider returning (assuming anyone wants me to). Please let me know if and when that happens.

For the record though, and in case it helps when another member becomes the target of Andrew's irrational outbursts, I have given a substantial list of reasons for this proposal, exactly none of which have anything to do with any disagreement with his political opinions.

• making off-topic comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• personal attacks on other members (including speculative accusations of malicious intent) 1
• launching filibustering proposals 12, 3, sometimes in un-related threads a, b
• making deluded proposal outcome statements that imply lack of interest in his proposals equates to consensus. I can't link to these due to Loomio bug that changes the text of his outcome statements in the comment stream to that of the outcome statement I replaced it with, but someone should have email records for comparison, and one example (although not from hospitality) is explained here.
• generally trying to shout down other members who are challenging his behavior, or trying to come up with sensible rules for productive use of Loomio 1, 2

Please note that although there's no obvious way to link to them, a number of Andrew's position statements on proposals were also examples of the above. Also, the linked examples are drawn from a quick flick through recent threads in the Hospitality subgroup, as this proposal only addresses Andrew's recent behaviour in this subgroup. There may be more examples I missed, and there are certainly more examples to be found in his recent comments across the whole Pirate Loomio group, and across the whole time we have been using it.

@tommy

I'm not comfortable with taking this action while The alleged breaches have not been specifically identified and explained

The fact that I, as the member under constant attack, seem to be expected to be the one conducting this level of forensic investigation is in itself part of the problem. In a functioning Hospitality working group, another member would take on this task, to ensure objectivity in the collection of evidence. That said, the fact that most if not all active members have participated in discussions where Andrew McP engaged in the behaviours listed in the proposal, means that this level of forensic investigation should not even be required before taking modest, short-term moderation actions, allowing us to discuss the problem (or lack thereof) without his constant interference.

There has not been sufficient explicit right of reply to the allegations

This is why I set the proposal to run for 10 days, to give sufficient time for discussion among the members, including statements by Andrew in his defence.

Lesser measures have not been used first (afaik)

A number of lesser measures have been tried.
* My first response was opening a meta-discussion in Hospitality, hoping that as a group we could discuss the deeper reasons why some of us advocate an evidence-based policy approach that doesn't simple take what health authorities currently say in the media (and on their websites) as gospel, and try to understand why he disagrees so vehemently with this.
* My second response was to open a number of discussions about rules and protocols for the use of Loomio that would address specific aspects of Andrew's various forms of misuse, including use of blocks, criteria for a valid proposal, a more constructive policy development process, as well as pointing to the need to review the Code of Conduct.

Temporary and limited removal of speaking rights was proposed to prevent Andrew's ongoing attempts to shout down other members in these discussions, or hijack them with frivalous proposals, and to give him warning that this behaviour is unacceptable in the NZ Pirates, so he might think twice before posting in future.

In parting, I propose an improvement to the moderation protocols. Because the Loomio group is the core decision-making platform, no verbal aggression or filibustering should be tolerated in it at any time. A member accused of personal attacks in the Loomio group should have their speaking rights in this group immediately suspended for 1 week, while the complaint is investigated. To prevent this protocol being misused to silence dissentors, if the Hospitality working group does not uphold the complaint, the member making the complaint can be considered to be filibustering, and have their own speaking rights suspended for 1 month.

How many times have you hauled me up on imprecise language before ?
The comment was stated in haste, and should have read "I can't be bothered being the victim to bizarre comments anymore."
Regardless of that previous comment, I still think it is time to cease the bickering you stir up by requiring individuals to comply with all direct democracy votes.
That is not how democracy works, and the party as a whole is bigger than this.

I would suggest that @zl4bv is right on this issue.

Regardless of that previous comment, I still think it is time to cease the bickering you stir up by requiring individuals to comply with all direct democracy votes.

...and so it goes on. Here we have:
* accusation of malicious intent (to "stir up" bickering)
* delusional statement. When have I ever insisted anyone comply with any votes? @andrewmcpherson on the other hand, at one point tried to claim a proposal that only he had agreed to (I believe it was in the Genetic Engineering thread) was now binding on the party!

Look, all we need to do is agree to cease commenting on each other's stances on health and this whole thing is over. No need to resign, or be otherwise unreasonable.
I have been imprecise with my language, and I have yet to go over the full list of fallacies that may have been made by both of us, mainly myself though.
I am happy to do that and that has been the entire theme of my failed proposals which you mistakenly erased.
Simple as that, let it rest. I am not commentating on your threads on health anymore, and you can do what you like there, as I no longer am interested at all in discord.

@ben

The endless attempt at direct democracy slows us down as we attempt to make every person decide and agree upon every little decision that could affect the party or its image.

As demonstrated above, this is not the problem. If the same group of 7 or so people actively participating here were instead operating as an elected Board, that would make no difference whatsoever. For as long as you continue to allow people to act like trolls in a formal decision-making forum, the NZ Pirates will continue to be (as I stated elsewhere) a weird and frustrating online role-playing game, not a serious political organisation. I'm out.

"a weird and frustrating online role-playing game"

Haha, a good description of the current state at this point in time!

"I'm out."

You're leaving PPNZ for good? :-/ :-(

As I stated in the comment above:

When the party has a constitution, clear rules about the use of the NZ Pirates Loomio group, including rules for a constructive policy development process, and a functioning moderation process, I will consider returning (assuming anyone wants me to). Please let me know if and when that happens.

I'm aware that was quite a wall of text I just bricked up, but it remains the case that productive discussion is unlikely when people respond before reading carefully, and ideally, taking some time to think about what's been said.

We had a constitution previously in the process of being signed. Last I heard it was either in Tauranga, or returning to Auckland.
It maybe the case that either @zl4bv , @tommyfergusson or @davidpeterson knows where it is, or at least has a copy.