Managing our facebook presence: Group Names, Code of Conduct, and Guidelines

@aquabluelounge "When we take the freedom or liberty to be candid then we will see people disengage."

Are you concerned about asking posters to locate debates in specific forums? I don't see that as limiting freedom or liberty, just organizing it. The fact that we can't yell in the library isn't limiting to free speech, it's a rule that prevents disruptive behavior, (whether intentional or unintended,) while helping the whole accomplish what they are there for. For example, the library provides meeting rooms for those that wish to talk so that others can find what they are looking for or study.

Or are you concerned that not allowing some posters to engage in slander, insults or lies is censorship? I think that the rules above are very clear that where it's ambiguous that admin would step back or would give the poster a chance to edit or clarify their statement themselves so it meets the rules. If you have specific edits to the guidelines above please elaborate.

I feel extremely uncomfortable engaging on a page that allows personal insults, name calling or blatant lies to go unchecked. These tactics can be extremely hurtful and off putting, extremely divisive, and will hurt all sides of the election reform movement.

I also feel really uncomfortable letting new or less outspoken users get railroaded or steamrolled when they do ask a question and participate. For example today a user who doesn't speak up much online asked for clarification on a video's message. The thread was immediately overrun with tangents, straw-man arguments, and debate that had nothing to do with the posters question or the video's content. The user checked back a couple hours later and posted "I'm probably too busy over the next 5 days to pay much attention." clearly overwhelmed and off put. I've heard over a half dozen people say they want or plan to leave for this reason alone.

If we had a guideline focused on keeping conversation on topic admin could have contacted the responded and asked them to please keep on topic with the original poster and invite them to start a new thread for their other ideas. Admin could also redirect to an existing thread on the topic if it was on Loomio.

In general I agree. What I was involved in putting up were the FB Ranked Choice Voting for Oregon page and Ranked Choice Voting for Oregon Discussion group. The difference is that the page only takes posts from the admin, I believe, while the group members can post but are moderated by the admins. The former has not had much activity compared to the latter. The problems cropped up in the Election Reform PDX group, which should have a code of conduct and should enforce it. But someone else is admin for that group.

As to names, I have been using RCV Oregon/Ranked Choice Voting Oregon/Ranked Choice Voting for Oregon for over a year, but am considering changing them depending on how my views of SRV finally settle. How different sites affiliate and what names they use will probably be affected by that as well.

Thanks, would you like to vote on the proposal then?

It wasn't clear to me what page "This main page is for welcoming new people" referred to. I would agree if I was sure what I was agreeing to!

I think this whole topic is an over reaction to one person and basically aimed at trying to discipline one person. Not a single person has unsubscribed from the Portland discussion group. A few new people have joined.

That being said I'm not opposed to a code of conduct for groups. Facebook already has its own code of conduct rules. Certainly if you violate those that would be bad. There shouldn't be any name calling, bullying, harrsssment, etc.

We can suggest people move detailed discussions here to Loomio but you can't make them sign up and do it.

I don't think we should have group moderators that actively try to manage or facilitate or organize all discussions. This would be a full time job and totally unnecessary. Admins or moderators should not try to referee what is true and what is not.

It is important to keep our terminology correct and not mix and match terms confusingly.

A Facebook "page" is for one way communication from the page owner to all those who like the page. Pages are not for discussion. They are good for public announcements and for attracting the public to the cause / organization.

A Facebook "group" is by definition a discussion group. There are no groups that are not for discussions. Discussion groups are not meant to be the front door of an organization to attract new members or for posting announcements, etc. They are meant for discussions and debates. Pages are meant to be the front doors.

There are open groups and closed groups. Open group discussions are visible to the public. Closed group discussions are not and are only visible to members. The group itself and members are visible but the discussions are not. There are also Secret groups. These groups are not visible to the public at all. You have to be invited to them to even find or know about them.

Perhaps our Facebook groups should be switched to closed groups so discussion is not visible to the public.

If we disband one or the other Facebook group we will lose people. They don't have the same or 100% overlapping membership. I'm not sure everyone statewide wants to be on a Facebook group discussion about Portland. Nevertheless I could see the benefit of merging both discussion groups into one.

I think we should disband the Facebook steering committee group and use the group on Loomio instead.

Adam makes some good points in disagreement. Maybe let things ride and see if they settle down over time.

I agree that we should have a strict implementation of a code of conduct, similar to some of reddit's more serious communities such as /r/science or /r/askhistorians. I believe it's important to keep discussion on topic, and tangents to continue in Loomio or a new post on FB. I also believe we should be strict in enforcing respectful language. I believe personal infighting should have no place here. If a party really wants to be disrespectful towards eachother there are plenty of other options where they can choose to continue that.

I do however think we need to be careful and not be ambiguous about what is frowned upon.

@adamzielinski

RE " I'm not sure everyone statewide wants to be on a Facebook group discussion about Portland."

Hi Adam, This is a misunderstanding of what I proposed. The mismatched and changed names for the groups as they stand and that whole bit are confusing things. I plan to make the group names a following proposal if we get some good ideas and opinions. The above proposal would be for the main fb page, not the discussion group. A discussion group would have those words in the name and would not be location specific. The guidelines for a discussion group would be 1 and 2 but for 3 I'd have something about starting new threads on new topics and keeping on topic in others' threads or something, but that could be for a later discussion.

To clarify: I'm suggesting we have one discussion group for Oregon for people that want to debate and dig in to the finer details and then one front doorstep group that is more outreach based and likely the one that new members would join/find first. This is the page that I would invite people to who might want to donate/learn/volunteer. We would share information on it and it would be focused on education and outreach with all the associated conversations. (Super technical details and debate are confusing and derailing for people new to the issues, especially if they're not on topic and people cant sort through what's relevant or not so this would be redirected to a page with those that want to engage in that). These groups could be called RCV Oregon and RCV Oregon Discussion Group. If we change the name of the organization they would both reflect that.

Also, you keep describing what the fb groups are. That is sorta missing my point too, I think. I'm suggesting how I think they should be and how I think the most people would be the most comfortable engaging. Ideal group satisfaction efficiency so to speak! I know you are seeing that people haven't left the group but engagement seems way down to me. Of those that are still engaging stress levels are really high. We need our people! Lets not waste their energy and invite burnout. I've feel pretty burnt out, fed up, and like quitting from all this stress and that is not something I want! Especially since I'm actually enjoying the work and the people in our group are all awesome. As we progress there will be some people who just want to derail us and I want to have some systems in place so that they are invited to participate, but in ways that aren't destructive.

@aquabluelounge Nobody want's admin to play tone police! Come on! How would you suggest editing guidelines?

I have a number of concerns. Some are specific to the content of this proposal; some are procedural or even just about our Loomio proposals in general.

(I should start by saying that I’m not clear on whether anyone considers the Loomio proposals that have passed to be binding. They’re not decisions of the general assembly or of any committee.)

1. About a month ago, a Loomio proposal passed that before a Loomio proposal is created, there must be at least three people who agree with it. I suggest that anyone creating a Loomio proposal demonstrate this support up front by giving the names of the two other people. This also creates a weak audit capability -- a person alleged to be a second might for example say, “Well yeah I told them I thought it was a good idea, but I didn’t agree to this particular proposal.”

They might even say, “Well yeah I agree with this exact proposal 100%, it’s vital and stupendous, but this wasn’t a good time for it so no I didn’t second it.”

1. It’s my experience that telling people “Do X to mean Y” causes problems, and it’s best to stick with doing X to mean X and Y to mean Y. So for example if Facebook has a Like button and Loomio has Agree/Abstain/Disagree/Block buttons, let’s please use those features in the customary manner and not pile on extra meanings.

I bring this up now because a couple of days ago Sara posted a version of this code of conduct proposal to https://www.facebook.com/groups/RankedChoicePDX/ that included a note at the end (behind a “See More” link), “please like to second this proposal.” Two people did in fact Like the proposal and I wonder whether Sara took that as equivalent to seconding the (slightly different) version that she proposed here on Loomio. Of course it’s entirely possible that Mark and Emily wouldn’t mind in the slightest, and it’s also entirely possible that Sara carefully checked with her seconds to make sure they agreed with and, yes, seconded her proposal exactly as worded. My point here is just to ask that we not say “like to second” or like-to-anything-else.

There’s no reason why seconding a proposal should be easier or less thoughtful than saying, “I second this proposal.” If anything the hurdle might be too small. If I may use myself as an example here, there are other things in my life that I could be attending to right now -- maters both important and urgent -- but instead I'm writing up an explanation for my vote on this proposal. No one is forcing me to write this, but I care how the vote comes out and want to state my position/suggestions.

1. How long do you all think a given proposal should be open for voting? I personally would suggest at least a week.

If there’s an emergency, and the emergency requires quickly creating or amending a policy, I suggest giving the change a clear expiration date. Maybe one month?? And then do the real policy change on a somewhat slower track.

1. While I agree that honesty and accuracy are important, it’s very common for people to disagree (strongly) about what is true and what isn’t. We’ve seen quite a bit of that in our group and will probably see quite a bit more. Allowing an admin to delete posts they consider false (let alone posts they consider misleading!!!) seems likely to cause serious problems. So I oppose that part of the proposal.

By the way Sara I really like that your proposal spells out a progressive approach to enforcing the code of conduct. Start with informing the person who’s violated the code and give them a chance to correct it themselves. That’s a great approach.

1. Speaking of disagreements about was is true, remember that our group has a fair number of disagreements on terminology, apparently including the word “censorship”. My own opinion is that any time an admin deletes someone’s post (or asks them to change it themselves) for reasons related to content, that qualifies as censorship. So under that definition, yes this proposal does call for censorship. (Whether that’s a bad thing is a whole nother question.)

2. How are admins appointed? Facebook groups can have both admins and moderators; are we talking about admins per se?

Sara, I appreciate that you see a problem and are trying to solve it. I’m not sure what to suggest as an alternative to your proposal. (Though if your proposal is enacted, I definitely suggest giving it a one-month expiration date as described in #3, above.)

One thing I’ve been thinking about is having more unstructured time to discuss RCV -- agendaless in-person meetings, as it were. I really don’t know whether that makes sense but I imagine the time spent would be worth it relative to all this typing online. People need to talk with each other.

Loomio changed my numbering, it was supposed to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.