Channel moderation approaches #138

circlebuilder commented 2023年01月29日 14:37:31 +01:00

I would like to address the subject of how to handle people that communicate on project channels in ways that aren't according to the Code of Conduct. Procedures and communication style should be honed to deconflict asap, and be examplary for improving group dynamics and avoiding of 'mob justice'.

Handling transgressions

First warning

A first warning is:

• Friendly, matter-of-fact, and non-dramatic.
• Carefully worded to deconflict as soon as possible.
• Consistently given in this way, so it becomes exemplary for others.

Procedure is as follows:

1. If a person transgresses the Code of Conduct ..
2. Then as soon as possible a moderator gives a friendly first warning ..
3. Where the nature of the transgression is pointed out ..
4. And the person is kindly requested to read and respect the CoC

Second warning

If the person persists in response to a first warning, then don't continue the discussion unless a fair point is raised. A response of "These are the rules we abide by in this channel" may be the only reply (but may be invitation to discussion all by itself).

1. If the person makes another CoC transgression ..
2. Then the second warning is stern ..
3. It will point out that the person was already warned before ..
4. And it will point out the disciplinary measure of a third transgression.

Disciplinary measure in a Matrix chatroom can be banning the person from the room.

Deconfliction

If there is a group dynamic whereby multiple people in a channel are forming a 'mob' or dealing out continuous justice / reprimands by their communication against a transgressor, then a Moderator kindly requests the room to halt further discussion and be on the channel's topic again. This may be accompanied with official warnings as appropriate.

Moderation style

My style is keep the intervention as brief as possible: Matter of fact.

• If the transgression warrants it, redact the offending comment
• Sternly point the offender to the CoC and to otherwise not interact with the project
• If there was insulting of other members suggest the person apologizes
• End of procedure

In this way..

• The person is already publicly berated, knows now what to do and what is expected
• Demanding an apology or formal statement of sticking to the PoC I would not do
  • Sure, an apology is nice, but it should come from the person, not enforced
  • They are already berated. Asking for this extra step is not needed, and only pollutes the comment thread more
  • Their future behavior will show their understanding

Background

First an example on dynamics:

• Not so long ago a person started a discussion on more or even proprietary licensing (can't remember specifics). This was followed by fierce reactions by multiple chatroom members, which - while technically within CoC - could be seen as (passive-) agressive. The person then left the chatroom, and likely with the impression that Forgejo community represents a rather hostile in-group.

Why do I start with group dynamics? Well, they can amount to giving a person a serious 'beating'.

Today we had effectively 2 chatroom members breaching the CoC:

• First person made derogatory and possibly racist remark related to a specific nationality.
• Second person responded harshly in an insulting or derogatory manner.

(To my big regret, while in haste I missed the 1st person's transgression)

What my approach to moderation is (and which from experience in multiple communities works well) is to give a first warning in a generally mild-hearted manner. My response to 2nd person's transgression was:

• "Please read the Code of Conduct and keep conversations with your fellow room members friendly and collaborative. Thank you 🙏"

Before me that person had received 3 replies by 2 people already, judging the comment as rude. After my warning 14 comments followed in discussion (including one of mine to point out my mistake of overlooking 1st transgression).

While a very unfortunate incident, it is good we practiced our moderation procedures. We should however imho try to be more to the point, and steer towards deconfliction asap, bringing chat on-topic again and within CoC norms.

Doing so sets an example to other members, and avoids heat and flame wars, mob justice if something happens and there's no moderators around.

I would like to address the subject of how to handle people that communicate on project channels in ways that aren't according to the Code of Conduct. Procedures and communication style should be honed to deconflict asap, and be examplary for improving group dynamics and avoiding of 'mob justice'. ## Handling transgressions ### First warning A first warning is: - Friendly, matter-of-fact, and non-dramatic. - Carefully worded to deconflict as soon as possible. - Consistently given in this way, so it becomes exemplary for others. Procedure is as follows: 1. If a person transgresses the Code of Conduct .. 2. Then as soon as possible a moderator gives a friendly first warning .. 3. Where the nature of the transgression is pointed out .. 4. And the person is kindly requested to read and respect the CoC ### Second warning If the person persists in response to a first warning, then don't continue the discussion _unless_ a fair point is raised. A response of _"These are the rules we abide by in this channel"_ may be the only reply (but may be invitation to discussion all by itself). 1. If the person makes another CoC transgression .. 2. Then the second warning is stern .. 3. It will point out that the person was already warned before .. 4. And it will point out the disciplinary measure of a third transgression. Disciplinary measure in a Matrix chatroom can be banning the person from the room. ### Deconfliction If there is a group dynamic whereby multiple people in a channel are forming a 'mob' or dealing out continuous justice / reprimands by their communication against a transgressor, then a Moderator kindly requests the room to halt further discussion and be on the channel's topic again. This may be accompanied with official warnings as appropriate. ### Moderation style My style is keep the intervention as brief as possible: Matter of fact. - If the transgression warrants it, redact the offending comment - Sternly point the offender to the CoC and to otherwise not interact with the project - If there was insulting of other members _suggest_ the person apologizes - End of procedure In this way.. - The person is already publicly berated, knows now what to do and what is expected - Demanding an apology or formal statement of sticking to the PoC I would not do - Sure, an apology is nice, but it should come from the person, not enforced - They are already berated. Asking for this extra step is not needed, and only pollutes the comment thread more - Their future behavior will show their understanding ## Background First an example on dynamics: - Not so long ago a person started a discussion on more or even proprietary licensing (can't remember specifics). This was followed by fierce reactions by multiple chatroom members, which - while technically within CoC - could be seen as (passive-) agressive. The person then left the chatroom, and likely with the impression that Forgejo community represents a rather hostile in-group. Why do I start with group dynamics? Well, they can amount to giving a person a serious 'beating'. Today we had effectively 2 chatroom members breaching the CoC: - First person made derogatory and possibly racist remark related to a specific nationality. - Second person responded harshly in an insulting or derogatory manner. (To my big regret, while in haste I missed the 1st person's transgression) What my approach to moderation is (and which from experience in multiple communities works well) is to give a first warning in a generally mild-hearted manner. My response to 2nd person's transgression was: - _"Please read the Code of Conduct and keep conversations with your fellow room members friendly and collaborative. Thank you 🙏"_ Before me that person had received 3 replies by 2 people already, judging the comment as rude. After my warning 14 comments followed in discussion (including one of mine to point out my mistake of overlooking 1st transgression). While a very unfortunate incident, it is good we practiced our moderation procedures. We should however imho try to be more to the point, and steer towards deconfliction asap, bringing chat on-topic again and within CoC norms. Doing so sets an example to other members, and avoids heat and flame wars, mob justice if something happens and there's no moderators around.

circlebuilder commented 2023年01月29日 15:00:35 +01:00

@fr33domlover @dachary this may well have overlap to things that have been documented before, that I'm not in-the-loop of. If that is the case then should see if things need update/merging somehow or not.

@fr33domlover @dachary this may well have overlap to things that have been documented before, that I'm not in-the-loop of. If that is the case then should see if things need update/merging somehow or not.

Ghost commented 2023年01月29日 17:11:35 +01:00

This is not redundant, on the contrary, very much needed 👍 There is one thing to consider: the Well Being team (which I'm a part of) and the Moderation team (which you are a part of) have different roles and they need two different guides.

In a nutshell:

• The Well Being team has a very heavy responsibility: it must read all communications to be able to defuse tension. They are the first in line and they have no power to enforce anything.

• The Moderation team is required to intervene only when and if the Well Being team fails. It has the required power to enforce the code of conduct.

Although I'm aware you're not fully in agreement regarding this separation, it is what it is. Unless you think it must be revisited before going forward with the current proposal?

This is not redundant, on the contrary, very much needed 👍 There is one thing to consider: the Well Being team (which I'm a part of) and the Moderation team (which you are a part of) have different roles and they need two different guides. In a nutshell: * The Well Being team has a very heavy responsibility: it must read **all** communications to be able to defuse tension. They are the first in line and they have no power to enforce anything. * The Moderation team is required to intervene only when and if the Well Being team fails. It has the required power to enforce the code of conduct. Although I'm aware you're not fully in agreement regarding this separation, it is what it is. Unless you think it must be revisited before going forward with the current proposal?

fsologureng commented 2023年01月29日 17:12:30 +01:00

I think this is not documented and should be related with Well-being team

I think this is not documented and should be related with Well-being team

fsologureng commented 2023年01月29日 17:15:59 +01:00

Although I'm aware you're not fully in agreement regarding this separation, it is what it is. Unless you think it must be revisited before going forward with the current proposal?

I didn't aware neither. Thanks for explain.

>Although I'm aware you're not fully in agreement regarding this separation, it is what it is. Unless you think it must be revisited before going forward with the current proposal? I didn't aware neither. Thanks for explain.

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年01月30日 17:38:17 +01:00

Is there a cooldown phase?

Like, if someone receives a first warning and walks away for a month just to come back later: would that trigger another first warning on transgression? Or already a second?

Is there a cooldown phase? Like, if someone receives a first warning and walks away for a month just to come back later: would that trigger another first warning on transgression? Or already a second?

circlebuilder commented 2023年01月31日 08:27:30 +01:00

Is there a cooldown phase?

I would not formalize these things, until it really becomes a necessity. All formal procedures add pomp and ceremony to a project and increase maintenance burdens. It also risks you follow procedure on one person and forget about it with another, and that in itself leads to another issue where people point out the inconsistency.

Best is to handle with compassion and empathy based on witnessed behavior and decide on a case by case basis what is the best way to handle. If someone digresses, gets a first warning, then interacts for a month in really useful and constructive manner, the second digression can be a softer warning than threatening a ban.

> Is there a cooldown phase? I would not formalize these things, until it really becomes a necessity. All formal procedures add pomp and ceremony to a project and increase maintenance burdens. It also risks you follow procedure on one person and forget about it with another, and that in itself leads to another issue where people point out the inconsistency. Best is to handle with compassion and empathy based on witnessed behavior and decide on a case by case basis what is the best way to handle. If someone digresses, gets a first warning, then interacts for a month in really useful and constructive manner, the second digression can be a softer warning than threatening a ban.

circlebuilder commented 2023年01月31日 08:37:08 +01:00

This document Avoiding Trolls contains really valuable information from which better procedures can be distilled. There's a long version which is recommended reading: Avoiding Trolls (Long version).

The doc exists on Github in an (unmaintained?) sub-branch. Maybe we should fork it to somewhere on Codeberg, or even within Forgejo. Though, I think it is a good one to reference from Social Coding, which already defined Social Coding Community Participation Guidelines and should formulate best-practices for moderation as part of its pattern library.

This document [Avoiding Trolls](https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/troll/Avoiding_Trolls.md) contains really valuable information from which better procedures can be distilled. There's a long version which is recommended reading: [Avoiding Trolls (Long version)](https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/56cf98c2b7bbccc402164a3d6d06b08579c7216d/Avoiding_Trolls.md). The doc exists on Github in an (unmaintained?) sub-branch. Maybe we should fork it to somewhere on Codeberg, or even within Forgejo. Though, I think it is a good one to reference from Social Coding, which already defined [Social Coding Community Participation Guidelines](https://discuss.coding.social/t/discuss-our-community-participation-guidelines/138) and should formulate best-practices for moderation as part of its pattern library.

fsologureng commented 2023年01月31日 15:47:40 +01:00

I worry that I see an elephant in the room. I suppose the Welfare team has applied the CoC in a very recent situation, but I still feel a personal sense of injustice that bothers me.

I think a public apology, as suggested by the CoC, is still necessary precisely to overcome the situation because, at least for me, I see that a standoff has been created that is neither real nor healthy. From my personal point of view, there is no equality of behaviour in the situation that has arisen and, although it is strictly necessary in fact, simply trying to slow down or close the debate could be unfair. The effort should never be on the side of the victim (e.g. by suggesting not to respond to a personal allusion). Harassment is avoided by explicit actions of third parties, with care. No one usually reacts well to personal attacks, and that should be acceptable especially when done in a respectful way.

I know that these situations are never desired or easy to resolve, but it is important to make amends. Forgejo is not a place for people angry at Gitea, and the scope of moderation judgement should extend outside of here. Our ecosystem is more than this space, and there are people important to Forgejo who have been badly treated before. We need a healthy space to work in from the beginning, but we need to keep in mind that people have a history on this path.

I am publishing this statement instead of just contacting the relevant teams because I believe that moderation still needs some adjustments in a community sense, and even though I believe that debate should take place without mob justice, silence is never a good precedent.

@circlebuilder @dachary @Gusted

I worry that I see an elephant in the room. I suppose the Welfare team has applied the CoC in a very recent situation, but I still feel a personal sense of injustice that bothers me. I think a public apology, as suggested by the CoC, is still necessary precisely to overcome the situation because, at least for me, I see that a standoff has been created that is neither real nor healthy. From my personal point of view, there is no equality of behaviour in the situation that has arisen and, although it is strictly necessary in fact, simply trying to slow down or close the debate could be unfair. The effort should never be on the side of the victim (e.g. by suggesting not to respond to a personal allusion). Harassment is avoided by explicit actions of third parties, with care. No one usually reacts well to personal attacks, and that should be acceptable especially when done in a respectful way. I know that these situations are never desired or easy to resolve, but it is important to make amends. Forgejo is not a place for people angry at Gitea, and the scope of moderation judgement should extend outside of here. Our ecosystem is more than this space, and there are people important to Forgejo who have been badly treated before. We need a healthy space to work in from the beginning, but we need to keep in mind that people have a history on this path. I am publishing this statement instead of just contacting the relevant teams because I believe that moderation still needs some adjustments in a community sense, and even though I believe that debate should take place without mob justice, silence is never a good precedent. @circlebuilder @dachary @Gusted

circlebuilder commented 2023年01月31日 16:05:52 +01:00

Thank you @fsologureng 👍

Yes, there's improvements and more clarity to the procedures to be made.

even though I believe that debate should take place without mob justice, silence is never a good precedent.

Note that silence isn't advocated. Maybe it wasn't clear in previous comments, and communication was a bit all over the place this morning.

Holding back a direct response, reporting to the well-being team, and let them deal with gauging the situation and find a best course of action. Depending on nature of transgression before/after that happens in the Well-being chatroom those involved can discuss.

It may not always go like that. And as a victim it is hard to first report and not respond immediately. But the chance of it getting out of hand are large, and if that happens and the offender was a true troll they will have what they were after.

Thank you @fsologureng 👍 Yes, there's improvements and more clarity to the procedures to be made. > even though I believe that debate should take place without mob justice, silence is never a good precedent. Note that silence isn't advocated. Maybe it wasn't clear in previous comments, and communication was a bit all over the place this morning. Holding back a direct response, reporting to the well-being team, and let them deal with gauging the situation and find a best course of action. Depending on nature of transgression before/after that happens in the Well-being chatroom those involved can discuss. It may not always go like that. And as a victim it is hard to first report and not respond immediately. But the chance of it getting out of hand are large, and if that happens and the offender was a true troll they will have what they were after.

fsologureng commented 2023年01月31日 16:29:33 +01:00

Note that silence isn't advocated. Maybe it wasn't clear in previous comments, and communication was a bit all over the place this morning.

I wrote just because the single official reaction I could find to the situation was the issue close as Too heated.

It may not always go like that. And as a victim it is hard to first report and not respond immediately. But the chance of it getting out of hand are large, and if that happens and the offender was a true troll they will have what they were after.

They have what they were after only if there is no sanctions or third person interventions (and there was a third person request to stop). I insist, the prevention shouldn't hold on the affected shoulders. I understand that you want to give a good advice and we all should know what a troll is, but the responsibility of the teams about the situation should go far away than that. That's my point.

> Note that silence isn't advocated. Maybe it wasn't clear in previous comments, and communication was a bit all over the place this morning. I wrote just because the single official reaction I could find to the situation was the issue close as Too heated. > It may not always go like that. And as a victim it is hard to first report and not respond immediately. But the chance of it getting out of hand are large, and if that happens and the offender was a true troll they will have what they were after. They have what they were after only if there is no sanctions or third person interventions (and there was a third person request to stop). I insist, the prevention shouldn't hold on the affected shoulders. I understand that you want to give a good advice and we all should know what a troll is, but the responsibility of the teams about the situation should go far away than that. That's my point.

circlebuilder commented 2023年02月07日 07:04:58 +01:00

@fsologureng posted to chat an article explaining 4 common opinions on trolling that do not hold true:

1. People should just "toughen up". The internet is a bad place. No. Trolling is always wrong.
2. Trolling is harmless. No. Trolling has a meaning and a target. Allowing rough "jokes" creates a culture that enables trolls.
3. Don't feed the trolls. No. The troll will trigger reaction with others, or come back for more trolling.
4. Any of this is simple. No. Each situation is different, requires skill to handle well.

Thank you, @fsologureng 👍

@fsologureng [posted](https://matrix.to/#/!qjPHwFPdxhpLkXMkyP:matrix.org/$O0f8x_134iN_7uFlYFVwj708mU5a5KwrAG1WlV0wW_M?via=matrix.org&via=envs.net&via=tchncs.de) to chat an article [explaining 4 common opinions on trolling](https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/12/17561768/dont-feed-the-trolls-online-harassment-abuse) that do not hold true: 1. _People should just "toughen up". The internet is a bad place._ No. Trolling is always wrong. 2. _Trolling is harmless._ No. Trolling has a meaning and a target. Allowing rough "jokes" creates a culture that enables trolls. 3. _Don't feed the trolls._ No. The troll will trigger reaction with others, or come back for more trolling. 4. _Any of this is simple._ No. Each situation is different, requires skill to handle well. Thank you, @fsologureng 👍

fsologureng commented 2023年02月07日 14:25:26 +01:00

Ultimately, if we care about abuse, we cannot care most about whether we have comforted, converted, or even fed them.

We have to care more about the people they hurt.

>Ultimately, if we care about abuse, we cannot care most about whether we have comforted, converted, or even fed them. >We have to care more about the people they hurt.

rdwz commented 2023年02月12日 01:13:43 +01:00

We have to care more about the people they hurt.

true story 💚

> >We have to care more about the people they hurt. true story 💚

rdwz commented 2023年02月12日 02:25:47 +01:00

and we shouldnt be wasteful with moderation or the well being team as a human ressource.

racist remarks should never happen. eof.

I think a public apology, as suggested by the CoC, is still necessary precisely to overcome the situation because, at least for me

The effort should never be on the side of the victim (e.g. by suggesting not to respond to a personal allusion). Harassment is avoided by explicit actions of third parties, with care. No one usually reacts well to personal attacks, and that should be acceptable especially when done in a respectful way.

💯

Forgejo is not a place for people angry at Gitea

i'd like to confess, that i'm not angry at gitea, but especially at that one guy: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21123#pullrequestreview-1239771412

lunny commented yesterday
Please don't talk about your opinion of community governance in a special issue.

😅🤐

and we shouldnt be wasteful with moderation or the well being team as a human ressource. racist remarks should never happen. eof. > I think a public apology, as suggested by the CoC, is still necessary precisely to overcome the situation because, at least for me > The effort should never be on the side of the victim (e.g. by suggesting not to respond to a personal allusion). Harassment is avoided by explicit actions of third parties, with care. No one usually reacts well to personal attacks, and that should be acceptable especially when done in a respectful way. 💯 > Forgejo is not a place for people angry at Gitea i'd like to confess, that i'm not angry at gitea, but especially at that one guy: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21123#pullrequestreview-1239771412 > lunny commented yesterday > Please don't talk about your opinion of community governance in a special issue. 😅🤐

circlebuilder commented 2023年02月23日 09:15:40 +01:00

I created a separate issue #169 about Wellbeing conflict-handling space (and used the Decision Proposal template I suggested this morning) that also serves as input here.

I created a separate issue #169 about Wellbeing conflict-handling space (and used the Decision Proposal template I [suggested](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/168#issuecomment-811470) this morning) that also serves as input here.