VIckie,

Being a business owner myself, I wouldn't argue with anything you say here. :-)

-J

Mark B.,

It's interesting what you say about free speech's demise. I highly recommend the book "The Offensive Internet" I posted about before. The authors argue that the free speech concept needs amending in this day and age. But I would not argue with anything you say here. I don't have any answers myself. 

J

Hi J_catlady,

Thank you for your kind comment.

Unfortunately, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, or something like that.  Civility is good, and I'm a big fan and supporter, but unfortunately conduct rules in this day and age have oftentimes become a tool for the politically correct and for those with an agenda of their own (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) to impose their own beliefs upon others (they also make for good paychecks for lawyers!).

In this day and age free speech is for all intents and purposes dead on many (if not most) college campuses due to codes of conduct having blurred and morphed from attempts at maintaining civility to attempts to legislate or police people's thoughts, actions, and freedom of speech.  Sadly, at one time colleges and universities were the bastion of free thinking and open discourse, though oftentimes with perhaps a liberal bent;   in this day and age as often as not the liberals use the colleges' codes of conduct to implement and enforce free speech restrictions and impose other restrictions of the few onto the many.  Sorta Big Brother'ish, sorta authoritarian, sorta the opposite of what this country (the USA) was purportedly founded and built on.  I'm not one of the far side liberal or conservative crazies, I'm a moderate and I find these attempts at PC mind, thought, expression, and action control to be repugnant.

Groups.io, like many other platforms, has the opportunity to open up channels of free discourse, thought, and expression not just here but presumably even in places (like mainland China or other oppressive countries) where the government attempts to restrict them.  A Groups.io-mandated code of conduct, while presumably intended merely to encourage civility, is no different in many aspects than the codes of conduct that many governments worldwide impose on their people in the name of keeping public order and civility.  I'm confident Mark Fletcher has no ill intent in floating the idea, I just think that it's a very, very bad idea (both in theory and ultimately in practice) to try to impose an across the board code of conduct on groups that are here for so many different reasons, with so many different viewpoints and theologies and philosophies and political bents (Ber's post #5931 explained this very well!).  Offering sample codes of conduct for group owners/moderators to consider is one thing;  mandating or imposing a one size fits all code of conduct is a totally different thing.

I feel so strongly about across the board, mandatory, imposed codes of conduct on communications platforms such as Groups.io, especially where groups can be made private and kept out of the public view, that I personally will probably stop considering Groups.io as a Yahoo! Groups replacement if a code of conduct is implemented here as I have no interest in having somebody else have final moderation authority over my groups!

Best,

Mark Bielecki 

Mark B., You're very convincing, I have to admit. I think of the code of conduct more as an issue of civility rather than censorship. However, I do see that it would be very hard to untangle the two.

J

Hi Mark,

It seems to me that every group on Groups.io already has the perfect Code of Conduct enforcement method in place:  if a member has an issue with something that has been posted, regardless of how popular or unpopular your viewpoint on that issue is, that member can ... leave the group.  Anybody who is offended by anything at all merely has to leave the group and will no longer be offended by anything posted in that group.  Really quite simple, and in its own way it's really quite elegant as well.

If a group's conduct becomes unacceptable to enough people there will no longer be a group;  problem solved, all by itself.  It's hard to be racist, sexist, or anything else-ist to others if there's nobody else there to listen!

If the group's conduct is acceptable to some or many people then those people will continue together as a group of like-minded individuals, whether here on Groups.io or elsewhere.  The question that immediately comes to mind when I hear code of conduct and private groups (and these are private groups, even if they are open to the pubic, unless they're supported by government money) is:  who is appointed the Official & Final Arbiter of Conduct?  And who decides who appoints this ultimate authoritarian?  And who decides who gets to decide who appoints him or her, ad nauseum.

Different people have different levels of tolerance, and depending upon the setting, circumstances, relationship of the individuals or group, etc., what may be nothing at all to one group of people may be utter blasphemy or outrageous behavior to others.  As some have already mentioned, Yahoo! bans certain words that can be considered vulgar or profane in some circumstances and are purely mainstream and acceptable in others:  bitch and ass come to mind (anyone who can't figure out the problems here then one shouldn't even be part of this discussion!).  I previously wrote about my offering to sell "Al's balls" on one of my groups, and the problems that it caused because somebody either didn't understand the context, the subject, or simply wanted to cause problems for that group with Yahoo!.  Religion and politics and even science groups are ripe for and rife with potential issues;  the Christian west, as an example, has concepts of free speech which include the assumed right to commentary and satire -- verbal, written, and visual -- while some religious groups, such as far right ultra orthodox Islam (my description) has real problems with those things when they are applied to Allah and Islam, resulting in the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie for writing and publishing his book "The Satanic Verses" and twelve people being killed at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine that published controversial Muhammad cartoons after Muslim clerics declared them to be blasphemous.

Out of curiosity, Mark, if Ayatollah Ruhollah started a Groups.io group to discuss Muslim theology and blasphemy, who would be the arbiter of the code of conduct on their discussions if a conservative Christian complained?  Would that arbiter of conduct have any moral authority to censor or ban one of the highest clerics of Islam theology?  That person would be damned if he did, and damned if he didn't!

What if a Groups.io group is started to discuss "The Satanic Verses" and somebody complains that it's blasphemous to the Groups.io Conduct Authority?  What if Salman Rushdie himself starts the group, or joins in the conversation or debate?  Similar issues as above.

What if a group of religious or free speech academics or even just plain old people started a group to discuss the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the underlying issues, re-posted those cartoons on their Groups.io group, and a conservative Muslim complained?  Would that arbiter of conduct have any moral authority to censor or ban the free expression and discussion (including the posting of blasphemous or non-blasphemous cartoons, depending upon one's point-of-view) by religious or first amendment scholars -- or people merely interested in discussing / debating the issues?  Again, the arbiter of conduct would be damned if he did, and damned if he didn't!

Take the example above even one step further:  What if Groups.io doesn't censor or ban the Charlie Hebdo group, and a bunch of conservative Christians, freedom of speech advocates, and conservative Muslims all join the group and start an intense debate on the matter.  Somebody complains to Groups.io about a code of conduct violation -- who at Groups.io has the authority and depth of insight and knowledge to decide what's OK, what's not, who's in the right, who's not?  I know I wouldn't be as I'm neither a religious authority or a free speech scholar, and I'm guessing Groups.io has neither on staff.  Even if your staff had one, obviously there's some pretty deeply held religious beliefs being discussed here and the blasphemy issue will never be answered on a Groups.io group or by a Groups.io Code of COnduct arbiter or censor, though there is obvious value to there being a venue to have the debate.  What will you do:  ban ALL discussion of a religious nature, or to be safe ban ANY discussion that will generate controversy and code of conduct complaints?

The obvious answer is to leave the moderators in charge of their own groups' conduct, and let the members vote with their feet:  stay if it's OK, leave if it isn't.  Simple and elegant, with the added benefit of keeping extremists from issuing fatwas on staff members of Groups.io! <--tongue in cheek humor, in case that wasn't clear!

The whole Code of Conduct idea is a bad idea from the start if it's going to be imposed on the groups by Groups.io itself.  Let the group owners/moderators determine their groups' culture and mores and conduct, and let the members signal their approval or disapproval by subscribing or unsubscribing.

Mark, if you are truly concerned about Groups.io getting some sort of "bad" reputation like some other communications platforms, might I suggest that to address your concerns without embroiling yourself and your staff in code of conduct issues and problems that you simply retain the authority to require groups which leave you uncomfortable or concerned to switch over to being private groups instead of public groups?  Problem solved with public image issues for Groups.io;  anybody who joins a private group at that point has gone looking for whatever they found, especially if you allow a label such as "restricted" or "adult" or some other similar rating or label that notifies the potential subscriber that there may be some concerns for the faint hearted amongst us.

Best,

Mark Bielecki 

Think business when creating your code of conduct.

 Vickie,

I can't read Mark's mind. But while I agree with everything you say here, on another level I have come to believe that Mark is thinking about more than "business." I believe he's trying to create a community with integrity. Of course, doing that will also serve his business well.  But I think his "purpose" is higher than just making a buck. 

J

Hi All,

I believe Groups.io should have a Code of Conduct. Yes, we already have a Terms of Service, but a Code of Conduct covers somewhat different territory. Here are three examples of Codes that I like, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about:

http://try.discourse.org/faq

https://golang.org/conduct

http://rubyonrails.org/conduct/

Of course, not all parts of those are applicable to Groups.io groups. Let me stress, the goal isn't to limit discussion or topics or groups, but to provide guidelines to keep things civil and respectful.

When I've brought this up before, some have said that they didn't think something like this was needed. That's fantastic; you're running your groups well! But based on complaints I'm getting through support, however, I think Groups.io in general would benefit from something like this.

Is this a bad idea? Tell me why (respectfully, please :-) ). Otherwise, let me know which parts of those Codes you like or don't like and I'll start cobbling something together. If you have a favorite Code of Conduct from somewhere else, please share it as well.

I've tagged this with the #CoC hashtag, so you can ignore discussions about this if you wish.

Thanks,

Mark

Mark,

I had time to think hard on what you want. 

First you opened the pandoras box  asking for suggestions.. ha,ha,ha.. 

it's trailing off on what new features can be added to .io  groups.. lol

Think on this Mark, 

Code of conduct   should be about the kind of business a person  has

whether  that be a bakery store, retail store, Technical service ,  corporation, included  but not limited to employees  etc

You have a business you are trying to get off the ground.

Ask yourself  what  kind of quality  code of conduct YOU expect  from  the service you provide  to your customers in general.

Who are your customers: Members and moderators are your customers.

I say this because   you may have an entrepreneur member who may decide   on a premium or enterprise group.

As a moderator managing a group if  I find  a difficult member I have found myself  using the code of conduct yahoo provides for every moderator and member.

https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/utos/index.htm

I also have a responsibility to adhere to your TOS when managing a group.. 

In truth. YOU have to decide on the kind of professional  code of conduct you want that will meet everyone using your website.

More important it should be "professional" in such a way that your   customers are impressed.

In turn I promise you, your website will be spoken about  in a good way and word of mouth is your best marketing tool.  

This is your baby Mark. "You" have to decide the code of conduct you want to meet the quality of business 

you are  working to get off the ground.

Think business when creating your code of conduct.

Vickie

I have seen reference to "aged out". I am trying to understand if there
is a time limit after which time a pending member will be removed.

Is it possible to suppress the rejected message from being sent out? If
I blank the default message, does that suppress it or will a blank
message be sent?

Can the creation of polls feature be turned off or at least restricted
to only moderators?

The forgotten email link is worded in a somewhat confusing manner. The
normal practice on other sites when one clicks a forgotten password link
is to be taken to a page where the password can be reset. Here, although
one is presented with that option, it is from within the Group itself;
that is, one is automatically logged into the site.

I did see some comments suggesting that passwords were… I think passe
was the word used. I can't say that I've heard anything to that effect
but I would be interesting in hearing from those who agree with that
idea, how sites/accounts are to be protected if passwords are done away
with.

I have selected the option to strip attachments as I don't want any
posted within messages at my group. However I notice that an ordinary
member can still see the selection box to choose the size of the
attachments they receive.

Now obviously they won't receive any regardless of which setting they
select but if the owners/moderators have made the decision that
attachments will not be allowed, wouldn't it be simpler if members
didn't see that option?

When a new member receives the "confirm your account" email, I think
it would be better to only have the "confirm account" link rather
than that and the option of replying to the message. Click a clear
hyperlink is simple and easy whereas more options can just serve to
confuse people.

Now I've been around the process myself when creating an ordinary member
account, I understand better all the messages about the confusion in the
process. I can't help thinking that if I and my co-owner were confused,
and neither of us are internet novices, then our members would
definitely be confused. I would much prefer the simpler and more common
set-up of simply having to provide an email address and a password in
order to join a group.

This morning's message was posted by a very experienced
internet/computer user so I'm pretty sure it is not a user error on his
part.

No matter what, I always want copies of my own messages.
I have the box checked, is that enough?