Code of Conduct (Attempt 1)

[Gerk]

I completely agree that this is something that needs to be written publicly, otherwise it has absolutely no purpose.

[Malliki]

Most social groups and communities have informal rules on how to behave. If we make them formal, we start to move away from being the community you people want it to be. I also don't see all the fighting and flamewars you people use as an argument to get this code of conduct. Sure, there was some friction just now when some people turned against one person in a nation that hasn't even joined yet, but that seems to be over now. Until we see these flamewars and personal attacks and everything, things should be kept as they are. If things get unmanageable, let's discuss a code of conduct.

[Jonas]

It's never bad to have a piece of document with some forum rules to which we can refer to when needed. That doesn't mean we move to something more then a community. Almost every forum has rules around behavior, it's simply so that in micronations it's often replaced by laws. As some of these forums aren't part of a nation, there is no really good reason to not have some rules written down. Just as Gerk I agree with a written Code of Conduct. Just some guidelines about what we don't permit. That way we can show visitors that we are against misbehaviour.

[Malliki]

So we really need it written down that we are against misbehavior?

[Andreas the Wise]

After a long discussion on #micronations, it seems to centre around two questions:

1. Are people more likely to get along in a way pretty much everyone is happy with and deal appropriately with those people who deliberately break that if we as a community agree to the standard of getting along and make it public than if it remains an unpublic standard, all other things equal?

2. Assuming that we don't have a problem at present that requires publicly agreed community standards, if we get a problem in the future that does, is it going to be easier to resolve that problem if we already have the publicly agreed community standards, or if we have to decide and agree on them then, in the middle of the problem?

I post them for the benefit of those not on #micronations, so you can cut through to the key issues and not have to re-cover ground we already covered.

Also, I'm not particularly attached to the phrase "Code of Conduct" and if that name is part of the issue for people, the "publicly agreed community standards" bit is the important bit for me, I don't care too much what we call it as long as the name bears some relation to what it actually is.

[Gerk]

Actually, I like "Publicly Agreed Community Standards." We can abbreviate it to PACS.

[Octavius]

Can it be Moderator-Established Directive for Public Activity Community Standards (MEDPACS)? Or... dammit... I'm no good at acronyms...

[Demon of Fides]

I think we need an I to make it MEDIPACS

[Jonas]

PACS... yeah... sounds good.

[Andreas the Wise]

Thinking more yesterday evening about what Chrimigules/Harvey/Malliki said: you've convinced me I need to think more about precisely about exactly what I want to accomplish and whether some Code of Conduct is the most effective means of accomplishing this. I'm starting to think no, merely because some people seem to be interpreting it in a completely different way from the spirit in which I drafted it up, and if you're going to do that then other people might do that and for that reason it might be unhelpful. Maybe. Not sure yet.
- You win, Harvey

But I remain convinced it is helpful to at least agree on the community standards as Bastion. At the very least, by agreeing on what they are, we're all on the same page and moderators can intervene if they have to lock threads that have broken the standards too far, because the moderators can be confident the community will support their action (and hopefully even the people involved, when they've calmed down). I'll start another thread for that, so we can keep this one to the discussion of whether we publish them as a code or not.
- We need to decide standards whether or not we publish them. I'll start a separate thread.

I also retain my original answer to #2, that even if we don't have a problem now (somewhat disputable) it is a very real possibility we will have one in the future. Why? Because I have seen these problems on other micronational forums (including the MCS and Shireroth in the past), and so if Bastion becomes more hublike (and so we get more micronationalists on here who may or may not intuitively behave as decent human beings) or if we accept more member nations (who bring more micronationalists who may or may not intuitively behave as decent human beings) we will conceivably have problems. We have established with Antica that one person that many others believe will cause troubles is not enough to deny a membership application. In this case, Malliki is a decent enough chap and happy enough to not start fights when others agree not to start them with him either. But who is to say the next potential problem isn't such a decent chap?
- Because Bastion gets new member nations and is semi-hub-like, I think it is reasonable to expect problems in the future.