Write our new anti harassment-policy!

[Kellis Amberlee]

Hey y'all!

We're are going to have a formal harassment policy and we need your input to create it. Really, really need it. This is your show.

We're not aware of any harassment so far but that isn't a reason to skip over making one. Just because we're Good Guys doesn't mean we've got a Good Process. We'd rather have a policy in place for when something happens rather than fumble in the dark in a panic.

THIS is a good link to how a policy can look.

THESE are our existing rules for this board.

How this will work:

Our current plain is

1) Post a thread inviting discussion of a harassment policy and ask you to comment. Done!
2) Summarise the discussion into poll options if possible, and ask you to vote on options.
3) Do as the poll decrees!

Each step will be open for a week. You are free to change your mind during the week. If you need more time after a week, you shall have it. Please write it in the comments in this thread. You are more than welcome to disagree with us. This is really more up to you than to us. How would you like it handled if you were being harassed?

After each week the admod team will summarise the discussion and count the opinions until we have a shiny new plan. Sound good?

The team will not be active in this thread. You have the floor. See you in a week!

[kathlynn]

The only problem I had with the example anti harassment rules is the bit where it says that they will not look into complaints about reverse -isms. Maybe I am just misunderstanding it, but while there may be more wiggle room in the reverse direction I don't think any form of discrimination should be acceptable. At the very least it needs to be clear that personal attacks based on reverse -isms will not be tolerated. (Not that I think the current members or mods would act like that, or let it go. I am concerned about it)

[Spiny Pinata]

I would change "harassment includes" to "harassment includes but is not limited to". This makes it clear that harassing behaviors not listed can be acted upon.

It might also be good to somehow address the scenario in which someone makes an -ist statement and then claims that it's part of their religious or political belief system and therefore counts as protected speech. This seems to happen on message boards from time to time (usually it's trolling, but you never know).

[Nicothodes]

Could there be a policy to notify members by PM, whether they're active or not, if someone turns up and is asking questions about them? Years ago, one of my exes joined a forum I had been on (but wasn't currently active on) and started asking everyone for information about me, and one of the mods reached out to me to let me know. The mod checked in whether I knew who it was and whether I felt okay with it, and when I said "yes, that's my ex and no, that's really creepy," my ex was banned. I think, both in terms of making sure I was aware that someone was being really creepy about me and asking for my input on the situation, it was handled really well.

[letternext]

Maybe also add age discrimination? I have also read a similar policy which stated that harassment is a silencing tactic, which I thought was good, although I don't know how to word it or whether it would be a separate thing. I mention this because reverse -isms accusations can also be a silencing tactic, but I'm not too confident or knowledgeable in talking about this stuff.

I noticed that the admin posts are visible when I'm not logged in, so I'm wondering if members are banned, they will still be able to see discussions if they're posted in this forum, as well as anyone who isn't signed up? I don't really know what the line between privacy & transparency should be, or how the discussions would happen, so this isn't really a proposal, just thinking if someone had been harassed, would there be somewhere for them to discuss it that is only visible to members, not the person who had been banned?

[edited to add, also include discrimination based on being a sex worker?]

[Rose Fox]

I suggest three parts:

1) A code of conduct. "This is what you may not do."

2) Information on what to do if you observe or experience someone else violating the code of conduct. "What can I report? How do I report it?"

3) Public policies for how the mods will handle reported violations of the code of conduct.

That's how we did it when we built the policies for Readercon (all of which can be read at http://www.readercon.org/safety ) and it's worked really, really well for us so far.

[lemonsharks]

I'm a big fan of clauses that give the mods/admins leave to address issues they hadn't foreseen when they wrote the policies.

(Back in 2003, I was co-admin on a board that ... didn't have a no-trolling policy. It took us 3 months to get one together, and the people who had been trolling the board were not banned, as they technically hadn't broken any rules.)

[Doggle]

Could there be a policy to notify members by PM, whether they're active or not, if someone turns up and is asking questions about them? Years ago, one of my exes joined a forum I had been on (but wasn't currently active on) and started asking everyone for information about me, and one of the mods reached out to me to let me know. The mod checked in whether I knew who it was and whether I felt okay with it, and when I said "yes, that's my ex and no, that's really creepy," my ex was banned. I think, both in terms of making sure I was aware that someone was being really creepy about me and asking for my input on the situation, it was handled really well.

This raises an interesting question - if someone who has harassed a board member elsewhere joins the board, can they be banned here if they haven't done anything wrong here? Where is the line on that? Would evidence be needed, or just assertion?

Or how about if someone takes info from here and uses it elsewhere (including in face to face conversation, with no record of it) - how do we prove it and where is the line?

[GeekChic]

I agree with kathlynn in finding the example linked to problematic in its stance around reverse discrimination. My Dad raised me alone because my mother was very physically abusive and the amount of garbage we both had to tolerate from women who:

- didn't believe men could parent
- didn't believe men could parent female - assigned kids
- didn't believe women could be physically abusive
- thought all men with kids were pedophiles

was really astounding. I'm sure some men thought this way too but they at least had the courtesy not to approach us or verbalize these thoughts to me or my Dad.

[kathlynn]

Could there be a policy to notify members by PM, whether they're active or not, if someone turns up and is asking questions about them? Years ago, one of my exes joined a forum I had been on (but wasn't currently active on) and started asking everyone for information about me, and one of the mods reached out to me to let me know. The mod checked in whether I knew who it was and whether I felt okay with it, and when I said "yes, that's my ex and no, that's really creepy," my ex was banned. I think, both in terms of making sure I was aware that someone was being really creepy about me and asking for my input on the situation, it was handled really well.

This raises an interesting question - if someone who has harassed a board member elsewhere joins the board, can they be banned here if they haven't done anything wrong here? Where is the line on that? Would evidence be needed, or just assertion?

Or how about if someone takes info from here and uses it elsewhere (including in face to face conversation, with no record of it) - how do we prove it and where is the line?

I think that, yes depending on the reason, it would be perfectly reasonable to ban or block someone from contributing to a site (especially with a small active membership) if they've harassed a current or prior member. Especially if it looks like they are exibiting stocker like traits. But I can't answer the est of your questions. Except, that yeah banning without activity requires proof from the injured party (might be as simple as having the admins contact the other site, or as complex as police reports.)