Date   

locked Re: Code of conduct

vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

J>>. conservative. That's not the case.
  It was an assumption on my part..  sorry

Vickie

 










locked Re: Received: header lines

 

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Feathered Leader <featheredleader@...> wrote:

What line is the Received Header line, and are you saying it would stay in the source view?

Received header lines just show the servers that the message passed through on the way to its' destination. I've already made the change that Shal suggested, just renaming them from Received to X-Received.
 
Speaking of that, I didn't know what View Original was, John said it was like View Source. Would changing that be a problem in case anyone else is confused on it?

Seems reasonable. Done.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Code of conduct

vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

Mark B
I realize what you said. I am saying Mark would   has a right  to keep an eyes on such groups in the event
Quote un quote :If there is intent to  engage people in  the act of   harming someone or  inject  the act of   terrorism
 Not saying there is intent.. Key word is If...

Sorry Mark if  my opinion bothered you. It was not my intent..  

Poor communication sometimes happens and I don't want that to happen.

 Out of respect for you, I guess it is time for me to bow out of this conversation.

Vickie

 










From: Mark Bielecki via Groups.io <msb05001@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 12:31 PM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC

Hi Vickie,
I didn't ask what Mark F. would do if the Ayatollah started a group on Groups.io to issue a fatwa, what I wrote was a question about if the Ayatollah started a group on Groups.io to discuss Muslim theology and blasphemy, TOTALLY DIFFERENT things altogether!
While I'm sure many of us have read the TOS for Groups.io I personally would wonder about anybody who had memorized it or knew it by heart!  < g >
Best,
Mark Bielecki

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 09:01 am, vickie <vickie_00@...> wrote:
Mark B>>>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?  
 You can't use this as an example.
Twitter has shut down many accounts for the example you just submitted.
If there is intent to  engage people in  the act of   harming someone or  inject  the act of   terrorism  because of religious theology it is against the law..
with that said Mark has  a right to keep a tight reign and eyes on this  sort of thing. 
If Mark creates his own code of conduct for his website, the courts do not get involved with that  and  his terms of service covers everything else..

Which by the way. I would like to know how many of you have read Marks  terms of service in full.

You all should know it by heart  while registered in his website.

Peace!
 
Vickie

 











From: Mark Bielecki via Groups.io <msb05001@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:28 AM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC

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 

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 03:08 pm, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Anita C. <pocketcollie@...> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, could you share the general nature of the complaints without giving away the specific list? 

Recently, complaints about bullying by group owners. But my thought about creating a CoC is more about the future than right now, and shaping the general reputation of Groups.io groups as 'safe' places on the Internet.

Here's what I want to avoid. Reddit has a horrible reputation, for hosting racist and sexist groups, for trolls, for a lot of nastiness. I don't want any part of that. While not a direct corollary to Groups.io, Twitter also has a problem with a lot of harassment. Many people don't feel safe using those services. In the real world, many science fiction conventions (amongst others) have realized that they need a code of conduct because bad behavior was happening (mainly sexual harassment, I believe).

It seems to me that there are some general things that would apply to all groups: no harassment, no racism, etc. By establishing a CoC, my hope would be that it would head off some of this behavior. I would hope that all Groups.io moderators would want Groups.io to have a good reputation. It would only help you.

Does this make what I'm trying to get at more clear? Thoughts appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark
 



 




locked Re: Code of conduct

 

Vickie,

My comment that the authors are referring to U.S. law was simply a factual note in response to yours that the author was in the UK and therefore conservative. That's not the case.

Again: I don't doubt what you say here about international law. IANAL.

J


locked Re: Code of conduct

vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

I  agree J.. It is  about  food for thought..  
Thank you hon
 

Vickie

 










From: J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 12:18 PM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC

[Edited Message Follows]
[Reason: added p.s.]
Vickie,
There are numerous contributors and the editors are both law professors at U. Chicago.
J
p.s. The authors don't propose one thing or another with respect to the specific issue here. I recommended the book just as food for thought and a different way of looking at things. So it's not an argument. :-) 




locked Re: Code of conduct

vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

Ok, but  Let me give you a perfect example
Some internet businesses in the United states are in court today because they refuse to  divulge data information.
Microsoft is one of them.. Freedom of speech  used  by customers is hidden in a way
It  is hidden from  the United states.
All data is kept out of country and that country has it's own laws.
So the FBI has to  go after Microsoft in Denmark courts  and has to go according to Denmark law to retrieve the information 
Microsoft  has it's own data center  in Denmark and freedom of internet speech laws in Denmark may be different..
 
 

Vickie

 










From: J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Code of conduct #CoC

They're referring to U.S. law. :-)

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:24 AM, vickie via Groups.io <vickie_00@...> wrote:
J, 
Yes,  I just wanted to point something out is all. 
I don't dispute their professionalism

Thank you J
 

Vickie

 













From: J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 12:18 PM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC

Vickie,
There are numerous contributors and the editors are both law professors at U. Chicago.
J






--
Janet-Olivia
I never feel sorry about what happened yesterday nor do I worry about what might happen tomorrow. "The Contented Little Pussycat" -  Frances Ruth Keller




locked Re: Code of conduct

 

Hi Vickie,

I didn't ask what Mark F. would do if the Ayatollah started a group on Groups.io to issue a fatwa, what I wrote was a question about if the Ayatollah started a group on Groups.io to discuss Muslim theology and blasphemy, TOTALLY DIFFERENT things altogether!

While I'm sure many of us have read the TOS for Groups.io I personally would wonder about anybody who had memorized it or knew it by heart!  < g >

Best,

Mark Bielecki


On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 09:01 am, vickie <vickie_00@...> wrote:

Mark B>>>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?  
 You can't use this as an example.
Twitter has shut down many accounts for the example you just submitted.
If there is intent to  engage people in  the act of   harming someone or  inject  the act of   terrorism  because of religious theology it is against the law..
with that said Mark has  a right to keep a tight reign and eyes on this  sort of thing. 
If Mark creates his own code of conduct for his website, the courts do not get involved with that  and  his terms of service covers everything else..

Which by the way. I would like to know how many of you have read Marks  terms of service in full.

You all should know it by heart  while registered in his website.

Peace!
 
Vickie

 











From: Mark Bielecki via Groups.io <msb05001@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:28 AM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC

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 

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 03:08 pm, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Anita C. <pocketcollie@...> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, could you share the general nature of the complaints without giving away the specific list? 

Recently, complaints about bullying by group owners. But my thought about creating a CoC is more about the future than right now, and shaping the general reputation of Groups.io groups as 'safe' places on the Internet.

Here's what I want to avoid. Reddit has a horrible reputation, for hosting racist and sexist groups, for trolls, for a lot of nastiness. I don't want any part of that. While not a direct corollary to Groups.io, Twitter also has a problem with a lot of harassment. Many people don't feel safe using those services. In the real world, many science fiction conventions (amongst others) have realized that they need a code of conduct because bad behavior was happening (mainly sexual harassment, I believe).

It seems to me that there are some general things that would apply to all groups: no harassment, no racism, etc. By establishing a CoC, my hope would be that it would head off some of this behavior. I would hope that all Groups.io moderators would want Groups.io to have a good reputation. It would only help you.

Does this make what I'm trying to get at more clear? Thoughts appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark
 



 


locked Re: Code of conduct

 

They're referring to U.S. law. :-)

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:24 AM, vickie via Groups.io <vickie_00@...> wrote:
J, 
Yes,  I just wanted to point something out is all. 
I don't dispute their professionalism

Thank you J
 

Vickie

 













From: J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 12:18 PM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC

Vickie,
There are numerous contributors and the editors are both law professors at U. Chicago.
J






--
Janet-Olivia
I never feel sorry about what happened yesterday nor do I worry about what might happen tomorrow. "The Contented Little Pussycat" -  Frances Ruth Keller


locked Re: Code of conduct

vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

J, 
Yes,  I just wanted to point something out is all. 
I don't dispute their professionalism

Thank you J
 

Vickie

 













From: J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 12:18 PM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC

Vickie,
There are numerous contributors and the editors are both law professors at U. Chicago.
J




locked Re: Code of conduct

 
Edited

Vickie,

There are numerous contributors and the editors are both law professors at U. Chicago.

J

p.s. The authors don't propose one thing or another with respect to the specific issue here. I recommended the book just as food for thought and a different way of looking at things. So it's not an argument. :-) 


locked Re: Code of conduct

vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

Thank you J

I can see that   is written by someone in the UK.
Internet laws and freedom of speech differ from country to country 
Even data collection laws  differ from country to country.    
I gather he is a very conservative person which is why he  wrote the book.
 

Vickie

 










From: J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 11:57 AM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC

Here's a link to the publisher:
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674064317




locked Re: Code of conduct

vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

Thank you J..
Retired business owner here.. 


Vickie

 










From: J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 11:25 AM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC

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




locked Re: Code of conduct

vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

Mark B>>>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?  
 You can't use this as an example.
Twitter has shut down many accounts for the example you just submitted.
If there is intent to  engage people in  the act of   harming someone or  inject  the act of   terrorism  because of religious theology it is against the law..
with that said Mark has  a right to keep a tight reign and eyes on this  sort of thing. 
If Mark creates his own code of conduct for his website, the courts do not get involved with that  and  his terms of service covers everything else..

Which by the way. I would like to know how many of you have read Marks  terms of service in full.

You all should know it by heart  while registered in his website.

Peace!
 
Vickie

 











From: Mark Bielecki via Groups.io <msb05001@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:28 AM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC

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 

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 03:08 pm, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Anita C. <pocketcollie@...> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, could you share the general nature of the complaints without giving away the specific list? 

Recently, complaints about bullying by group owners. But my thought about creating a CoC is more about the future than right now, and shaping the general reputation of Groups.io groups as 'safe' places on the Internet.

Here's what I want to avoid. Reddit has a horrible reputation, for hosting racist and sexist groups, for trolls, for a lot of nastiness. I don't want any part of that. While not a direct corollary to Groups.io, Twitter also has a problem with a lot of harassment. Many people don't feel safe using those services. In the real world, many science fiction conventions (amongst others) have realized that they need a code of conduct because bad behavior was happening (mainly sexual harassment, I believe).

It seems to me that there are some general things that would apply to all groups: no harassment, no racism, etc. By establishing a CoC, my hope would be that it would head off some of this behavior. I would hope that all Groups.io moderators would want Groups.io to have a good reputation. It would only help you.

Does this make what I'm trying to get at more clear? Thoughts appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark
 




locked Re: Code of conduct

 

Here's a link to the publisher:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674064317


locked Re: Code of conduct

 

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 08:24 am, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

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,

I peeked into the book on Amazon and it looks like an interesting and thoughtful read!  Thanks.

Best,

Mark Bielecki



locked Re: Code of conduct

 

p.s. As far as actual censorship goes, I'm about as extreme an opponent of it as you'll ever find. (For the record.;) But with the internet as a tool, speech can now do more actual harm than it could in the days when First Amendment law came of age, and the law still lags way behind, according to the book authors (and I agree).


locked Re: Code of conduct

 

VIckie,

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

-J


locked Re: Code of conduct

 

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


locked Re: Code of conduct

 

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 


locked Re: Code of conduct

vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

J>> But I think his "purpose" is higher than just making a buck. 


In business it is about  your reputation in business and   quality   of service  is important so you can  make money.
When you own a business   the work you put into it  is about the money and there is no room for friendship  and business.
That does not  mean  if you own a business you have to be rude to your customers or friends.
It means  priority first in  the business he is trying to get off the ground.
One has nothing to do with the other.  
 Mark may have professionals  creating a business in his website  , or a conference group.
People with  skills and Mark has to show he is a professional they can count on. 
Keeping your customers satisfied and happy is what it is all about.

For that reason a code of conduct is important to  keep his business  professional and running  in an orderly manner .
Code of conduct should shout professionalism  especially for those customers who want to   pay for his services and the code of conduct should 
be across the board for everyone   mods, members and professionals alike
 Groups  can have  different types of  code of conduct  according to the service the group provides.
But the ultimate code of conduct that Marks  puts together everyone should respect because his business is on the line.
Mark has to create a code of conduct according to the type of business he provides for everyone to include moderators and members..
Possibly a social media type of code of conduct or  code of conduct if  you  are  registered   to use his website.




Vickie

 










From: J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:26 AM
Subject: [beta] Re: Code of conduct #CoC

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 06:22 am, vickie <vickie_00@...> wrote:
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