How about:
Safety - We create an environment where everyone should feel safe to be themselves, interact with others, and express their opinions and contributions free from any ad hominem attacks, harassment, hate speech or language that creates an attitude of violence.
cc. @brantlymillegan
@bendi To your point, I’ll work with @spencecoin and @estmcmxci to make the guidelines less ambiguous to reduce the possibility of multiple interpretations.
Brantly’s public reaffirmation of the statements “transgenderism doesn’t exist,” and “homosexual acts are evil,” is a specific example of the type of conduct that I would like these guidelines to prevent on our Discord, forum, and official Twitter accounts.
This type of rhetoric being reaffirmed by Brantly, who held position of power and authority in our community, absolutely made individuals feel alienated and marginalized as demonstrated by the community response… The detrimental impact from this conduct is self-evident.
Ultimately, the DAO will need decide what is allowed and what boundaries should be in place, but we will need to reach a decision collectively. Having no established boundaries is not working.
Just to confirm, since you specifically said “official”, then that does not include personal social media accounts, right?
In which case, Brantly stating or reaffirming his personal religious beliefs on his personal social media account (especially in a civil and non-harassing manner as he did) would not violate the code of conduct, correct?
Just about all personal/religious beliefs necessarily offend, alienate, or marginalize someone in the world, exactly because the world is so diverse. Even if you still welcome and treat everyone with respect and don’t intend to alienate anyone, that’s not up to you. It’s up to each and every person and how they feel, and if they feel alienated then that’s that.
So if you did not just mean official accounts, if you mean to include personal social media accounts too… Then, to be part of this DAO, must everyone solemnly swear to never post any personal/religious beliefs on any public platform outside of ENS? Or, does it only matter when you’re a “big enough” influencer like Brantly? If so, then you need to give a number right? What’s the threshold, how many Twitter followers must one be below in order to post personal beliefs without being at risk of getting kicked out of ENS?
Yes… that is pedantic. But that is needed when a “code of conduct” is so broad that it reaches even into the personal lives of all community members, and anyone can trigger a violation just by saying “I feel alienated”.
Prantly, who happens to be the designated popular kid on the block(chain), has a habit of playing with fire. Usually it is fine, nothing-burger, no-big-deal scenario with his little tricks but this one time he happens to hurt others during his play time (as is statistically likely if one keeps playing with triggers). Prantly gets told on to his mother by the other kids who were hurt. Mom is furious. Mom tells Prantly – ‘Do not play with fire. It can hurt you and others’. But Prantly being Prantly, goes and plays with fire again, and goes around encouraging kids that everyone should play with fire, and in fact, everyone be allowed to play with fire as it is their right as individuals (it is). If they can roast a marshmallow on fire, they surely can handle all aspects of fire, right?
Is encouragement to kids by Prantly to play with fire, irrespective of how nicely he said it and if it was followed by candies, ethical under customary code of conduct? Should he be allowed to encourage others to play with fire on his personal platform that nonetheless leverages his popularity anyway?
When does it become fine to play with fire and when does it not? I guess roasting marshmallows is fine, but throwing petrol in it is not. We need an exhaustive list all the things that can or cannot be done with fire, or else society will end in chaos and kids will be on fire all over the place. We need a number to indicate threat level from fire for every fire-related event – no matter how redundant!
Yes, it is pedantic. Similar to the idea of trying to quantify fire and its hazards.
Take-home message: This is not rocket science. CoC are just guidelines. If you don’t want to follow them, don’t. If you are not the designated popular kid on the street, no one will care; go burn yourself. But if you take the stage as a popular kid, be ready to get “cancelled” if you tell everyone else to play with fire and provide fuel for it. Popularity/Influence leads to fundamental restrictions in freedoms and increase in liability toward fiduciary social responsibilities/duties. It’s about time people get used to this hard practical fact.
Agreed. There needs to be a very clear line established.
I am not in favor of restricting anyone’s belief system and the DAO should not arbitrate an individual’s morality. Despite this, and irrespective morality, if conduct has a demonstrable negative impact on the DAO we should have guidelines in place to deal with the situation.
In the Brantly case, I would argue that his actions in support of his freely-held, personal beliefs did negatively effect the DAO’s public image and damaged our ability to conduct business.
The point and place of initiation could be argued to be beside the point because the negative effects reached beyond his private domain.
Thank you both, I agree that it is not rocket science here, and these are just guidelines. But this one specific point of “official accounts or reaching into personal social media accounts as well” is important to clarify, which is why I brought it up.
I see absolutely no “actions in support of” his beliefs that Brantly performed that would violate the code of conduct, especially when considering that it originated from a personal social media account. Merely reaffirming “yes, that tweet from 6 years ago contains my personal religious beliefs” in a civil and non-harassing manner is well within the code of conduct, and did not “negatively affect” the DAO’s public image in my mind. Same goes for the entirety of the following Twitter space, where I found Brantly to be incredibly patient and civil.
If those actions negatively affected the DAO’s public image in other’s minds, well, that’s for each individual person to decide for themself.
There was a negative impact, and you have decided for yourselves that Brantly’s conduct “demonstrably” caused it, as if that were some sort of plain fact. But I see no such demonstration or plain fact. It was not the conduct of Brantly that had a negative impact. The conduct of others in reaction to his beliefs caused the negative impact in this case.
Again, just guidelines, I understand, I can tell I’m bemoaning the points too much already. And @inplco makes an excellent point. Popularity means restrictions of freedoms and cancellations no matter what the rules are, that’s just life. I think the same events would have sadly played out even if we had this code of conduct in place beforehand.
This is super tough. I’m a little more relaxed on having to relinquish personal freedoms to hold a position. It seems normal that my actions as a private citizen would affect my standing in an association or organization, but this isn’t the case for most people, especially in the private sector.
On the other hand, the position of Stewards and Directors carry more responsibility and culpability. As a DAO, where do we believe that duty ends?
I will also need to sleep on this and give it some thought before voting on that poll.
As per my last comment, even if the CoC did extend to Directors’ personal social media accounts, Brantly’s conduct would not have been in violation of it in my opinion.
Same here. It’s a tough one.
It’s difficult to discuss because it’s actually a philosophical paradox: The Paradox of Tolerance. I learned about this paradox through the Go Code of Conduct Update, which explains why they think a “Code of Conduct” is necessary, and lays out their model for enforcement (which seems to be pretty successful).
It is an interesting philosophical dilemma, but the “paradox of tolerance” that many enjoy bringing up has a fatal (and perhaps recursive?) flaw: Just who decides what is “intolerant”? For example, some people see the mere statement or reaffirmation of one’s religious beliefs and incorrectly label that as “intolerant”. Certainly, none of Brantly’s conduct was intolerant in any way.
But in general yes, completely agreed, there have to be some limits, some guidelines, that is the spirit of the “paradox of tolerance” that I’m sure you mean. And a Code of Conduct is necessary to outline those. And I know it necessarily has to be somewhat vague, that’s just how these things are. I’m just trying to dial back the vague a little bit so things make more sense. Such as the “free from any negative reaction” that I believe should be changed.
I gave it some thought and voted Yes on this poll. This is with the understanding that it applies only to Stewards and Directors, and not to everyone else in the community. I tend to agree with @Coltron.eth and @inplco in that if you are in one of these pivotal “public figure” roles for the DAO, I think it’s fair to require you to abide by these guidelines on any public forum outside of ENS as well.
The vast majority of this CoC is just common sense “be kind, respectful, and civil” stuff anyway, at least to me. But yes, it does mean that a Steward/Director must be careful about what they post online, even on personal public social media accounts. If you use your personal social media account to flirt with other people, make crass jokes, or throw insults, you need to agree to give up those freedoms to be a designated public figure for the ENS DAO.
And just to be clear once more, with all that said, Brantly’s conduct (the statement, reaffirmation, and anything on the Twitter space) would not have violated this CoC in my opinion. Merely stating one’s personal religious beliefs in a civil and non-harassing manner on one’s personal social media account would not be grounds for a conduct violation. But as @inplco says, come on man, just don’t play with fire okay?
I would say that this use of language falls under :
The comments were made years ago, obviously. It’s unfortunate it was unearthed and quickly circulated. Clearly, it’s not a good look for us. That’s why we need to take better care of how we use language, especially if we are in a position of influence. Leaders set the example for the rest of the community. Do we as a Community want to welcome this kind of vitriol into our space?
I would like to never see this repeated again, please.
I’m not a fan of a broadly worded COC. Brantly has a point on orientation, which should be changed to sexual orientation, which would be read broadly to encapsulate all groups. Status, should be changed to “relationship and legal status”. “Etc.” should be deleted.
As to Brantly’s last point, it goes both ways that someone’s personal beliefs and views should not be disrespected but there is no need that they be accepted. In other words, “You do you and I do me.” We should be able to work together on ENS issues without the need to bring one’s beliefs or views, which could cause friction, into our ENS work.
As long as we don’t shove one’s beliefs and views down each other’s throats there should be no reason we can’t work together for ENS. If that is not the case, then don’t work together.
I agree, too broad and ambiguous.
Any “. . . ism” exists to those whose believe it exists and doesn’t to those who believe it doesn’t, because it goes to one’s beliefs. Same thing for one’s judgment on what is or is not “evil.” But such beliefs and views should be kept to one’s self and not be proselytized when working on ENS work.
“Hate speech” is too subjective, because it’s definition is based on the recipient’s reaction to the statement.
I have a use case I would like to hear feedback on. Can we agree that impersonating someone else violates the integrity clause as it relates to deceit? This would extend to the .ETH name I use to identify myself in the DAO. For example, I should not pretend to be someone else, such JoeBiden.eth or pretend to be from a company, such as microsoftsupport.eth
thanks
Tom B - EnCirca
How about:
“Don’t be a hater”.
That would constitute one’s opinion.
Thanks all for your feedback on this. Since it has been 10 days since the last comment, we’ll process this feedback and incorporate as needed into the CoC.
For full disclosure, we’re moving close to a final draft and a social proposal.
Following the Meta-Gov WG call last week, there was some discussion on whether the Meta-Gov or the Community WG would be the appropriate WG to move the proposal, and the draft proposal forward. On the basis that there was a request to fund the CoC from the Meta-Gov budget, I wonder if we could wait until the second Meta-Gov call tomorrow before moving anything forward.