Hi all, thanks for all the feedback today. I have put together this code of conduct as a starting point. We can of course modify it over time as needs change, but it would be good to hear if this is on point based on the discussion, or if it needs more work.
Based on suggestions in the feedback thread, I’m proposing this does not go in the sidebar itself. Instead, we keep the current rule “Don’t be a dick”, and link to this code of conduct. A simple, single rule; more clarity for those that need it.
Please let me know what you think:
Welcome to the Lemmy.nz! We are dedicated to fostering a positive and inclusive environment for all members. To ensure a respectful and enjoyable experience, we require that you adhere to the following code of conduct:
- Don’t be a dick: Treat all members with respect and kindness. Avoid personal attacks, harassment, discrimination, hate speech, or any form of abusive behavior. No promotion or encouragement of suicide, self-harm, or violence against others.
- Good faith participants only: No trolls, no nazis, no tankies.
- Respect Privacy: Do not share personal or confidential information about others (doxing).
- No Spamming or Advertising: Avoid excessive posting of the same content or advertisements.
- No disinformation: Posting of harmful disinformation is not allowed.
- Report Inappropriate Behaviour: If you witness any violations of the code of conduct or encounter any other issues, report them to the community moderators or administrators. Help us maintain a safe and welcoming environment for all.
Failure to comply with this code of conduct may result in temporary or permanent ban, as determined by the moderators or administrators.
This code of conduct was developed in conjunction with the community. If you need more context to understand what the community deems to be acceptable, please see this thread.
Remember that the code of conduct is in place to ensure the best possible experience for all members. By participating in our community, you agree to abide by these guidelines.
Thank you for being a part of the Lemmy.nz community and for helping us create a vibrant and inclusive space for discussion!
Edit: I’ll now create a formal post for this.
I like it but would really like to see advocating violence and/or self harm specifically called out. Some people listen when told to go kill themselves, or when someone rhetorically asks who will rid them of a meddlesome priest.
I have added “No promotion or encouragement of suicide, self-harm, or violence against others.” to rule 1. Does this cover it?
Yes thank you
deleted by creator
That’s a thumbs up from me.
Sweet as!
Is good.
Good policy, I like it. Cheers!
deleted by creator
Looks good. Loving how quick we get on with things instead of debating to the nth degree as well.
Nothing else that I can say, except agreement by upvote.
LGTM
Excellent job, I can’t think of anything further to add.
The only one I’m uncomfortable with is #5. This implies there is always truth and a ‘right’ answer which can stymie debate. Facts evolve as understanding of the world evolves and deepens. Under #5 we would have banned Copernicus …
So we have significant evidence that vaccines don’t cause autism, COVID jabs don’t have microchips, climate change is human caused, etc. How would you phrase it to say that we don’t allow debate on these things? Remembering that these are based on much more rigorous evidence than the prevailing view in Copernicus’s time.
Let downvotes to oblivion to do their thing.
My understanding is that allowing disinformation to proliferate, even downvoted to oblivion, is still a chance to hook someone in to that thinking if they already see themselves as marginalised.
While pushing back, or removing will not work to reprogram true believers it will protect those vulnerable to misinformation
Yes I remember reading in the past that you shouldn’t even joke about these things, as giving people more exposure to the idea means that for those that are vulnerable (which is not necessarily who you might think!), more exposure can mean they are a step closer to believing.
My personal view is that anti-vax, climate change denial, and similar content should be removed on sight.
Yeah worry less about being platonic ideal of fair and more about actual harm - there’s always a slippery slope argument to be made but when the hypothetical is given more weight than the actual stupid things happen.
My personal view is that anti-vax, climate change denial, and similar content should be removed on sight.
What do you consider as anti-vax then? There is a whole spectrum from “vaccines causes autism” to “covid vaccines are safe and efficient”, where both of these extremes are blatant misinformation.
I am staunchly against vaccine mandates. Is that a viewpoint that is OK to argue for? I do not think the current set of covid vaccines are either safe or efficient. Is that a view I am allowed to express?
As discussed over chat, we will try to avoid these discussions at all. Even if most people participate in good faith, in a public forum discussing such controversial topics you will get bad-faith participants, and we simply don’t have the moderation power to keep this on track.
I think it’s kinda gonna depend on what you’re arguing really. And how.
You can disagree because you think the legal or philosophical underpinnings of vax mandates are unsound and that’s not being anti-vaxx. That’s being anti-mandate.
But if all your anti-mandate rhetoric comes from Fox News and you’re citing the virus is a hoax as a reason not to mandate, that’s probably not going to go well. Especially amongst those of us who have firsthand seen it killing people we know.
So is this staunchness restricted to vaccines within a certain development timeframe and if so where does your staunchness border lie? Or are you just ideologically pro-polio?
Please just don’t. Any discussion is not going to convince anyone on either side. It’s a moderation disaster waiting to happen, and a waste of everyone’s time.
The problem is I’m pretty sure there’s nothing built yet to hide or collapse low karma posts or to restrict low karma users. Downvote troll paradise.
Works fine until the brigading starts
Keyword there is “harmful”. People are allowed to be wrong about stuff, until the things they say might directly harm another person or group (by scaring them away from effective healthcare, or giving them dodgy legal advice, as examples).
Geocentrists can post to their hearts content I reckon.
Psychologically misinformation is thought to be an attraction to being part of an in group, and less harmful permeations are a sort of gateway drug to the more batshit harmful stuff.
That heliocentric universe proposal world justify a righteous banning. I wouldn’t let him in.
Looks good to me 😊 Maybe for #6, do you mean “community moderators”? Maybe include a direct link to a page of the moderators/admins?
Ah got caught copy/pasting! Thanks for catching that.
Is there a page that lists mods/admins we can link to? I’ve only see it listed in the sidebar for the community.
Hmm not that I know of! Gosh I am tempted to pull out an IDE and make some fixes but I don’t know Rust yet
Everyone who knows Rust started out not knowing!
And the UI is Typescript so you could look at that too: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-ui
Robust and simple, looks good to me.
My request is that for as long as you can, don’t fall for the trap of the argument that these guidelines are biased or involve arbitrary calls. Everyone who is here has come here in good faith and already understands the need for holistic moderation.
The longer you can outright ban dicks after maybe one warning, the better the place will be.
Thanks for taking on the job of running this place
The aim was to have as few rules as possible. I wanted just one (don’t be a dick) but others with more experience at handling communities that occasionally get hate speech etc spoke up about how important it was to make it clear what kind of community we are (and so our not many rules is not conflated with say whatever you like). We compromised, but given Lemmy’s pre-reddit migration reputation I feel it was a good call to flesh it out a bit more than the single rule.
This post is almost a month old (very old in terms of reddit->lemmy migration), and this draft became our official code of conduct (posted here: https://lemmy.nz/post/63098).
Ah, right on.
Agreed on the value of the specificity, just in my experience you need to be ready to hold firm against bad-faith actors who try to rules-lawyer you.
Yeah I’ve had prior warning about that. Currently it hasn’t been an issue, but as we grow I can feel tides changing. It will surely come up eventually.
It feels like we’re in good hands either way. Thanks!
I think all we can really hope for and expect is “don’t be a dick” An extreme position on hate speech will devalue and could mean “tow the party line” by future mods. However I think there is no value in pointless insults that add nothing to the debate.
We are not going to “debate” anything that can reasonably be considered hate speech.
