Updating our Core Documentation

Our core documentation has needed an update for some time and I've finally sat down and hammered it out. After being reviewed by the leadership, I'd like to share it with all of the membership for you to review and comment on before making it official.

With this revamp, I wanted to go back to the basics and rebuild the core documentation and rethink its purpose. While it contained important information, the Member's Handbook never had a clear defined purpose. So I've decided to re-envision it as the Charter. The Charter is meant to be the central document, our Constitution, if you will, and the basis of how the community is ran and managed.

I've taken a pass at our Code of Conduct, also. The main changes I've made here are to remove the duplication of rules for the Forums, IRC/Fleet Chat and TeamSpeak and instead combined the rules together. As well, remove outdated or rarely used rules. To make it clearer, I've moved rules, like not withdrawing items from the bank to sell, from the Member's Handbook to the Code of Conduct where it really should be.

Finally, I've written the new Community Guidelines. Before now, we've had the often misunderstood "PG-13 Policy". These rules have never really been written down before. The American-centric term PG-13 made it difficult to understand for our non-American members and even within the US, PG-13 is a bit of a moving target. These new guidelines are meant to standardize what's appropriate for our community and our moderation efforts.

I'd love to hear what you all have to say about these new documents. If you see or have any problems, please feel free to reply below with what section that you think can be improved or what additions you'd like to see!

Point One: I think you typo'd your own handle in the charter. :P

Point Two: This came up recently in fleet chat and while I can kind of see both sides of it, there seems to be a bit of a conflict. Someone (don't remember who) was annoyed at having a casual discussion of drag being shut down in chat as inappropriate. The (accurate) point was made that the Stonewall Riots were largely started by a group of drag queens and trans folks, so why was it an off-limits topic in a fleet bearing that name? IMO an LGBT fleet is going to be by definition at least semi-adult oriented.

Granted it's off-topic since it's not game-related, and unnecessary/gratuitous discussion of directly sexual topics is both unnecessary and inappropriate in an online gaming context, but any LGBT group shutting down discussion of a gender-fluid segment of the LGBT community (representing a big part of its history and culture) seems overzealous and wrong-headed.

To prevent such misunderstandings, maybe put in something about in-game chat being expected to be mostly game-related? Or to keep that kind of discussion primarily in the off-topic areas of the forums? I don't know what an equitable compromise on that sort of thing looks like, but I think there really should be one.

Quote by Teknomancer

Point One: I think you typo'd your own handle in the charter. :P

I don't know how I managed that and how it went without notice until this point. Thanks for pointing it out.

Quote by Teknomancer

Point Two: This came up recently in fleet chat and while I can kind of see both sides of it, there seems to be a bit of a conflict. Someone (don't remember who) was annoyed at having a casual discussion of drag being shut down in chat as inappropriate. The (accurate) point was made that the Stonewall Riots were largely started by a group of drag queens and trans folks, so why was it an off-limits topic in a fleet bearing that name? IMO an LGBT fleet is going to be by definition at least semi-adult oriented.

Granted it's off-topic since it's not game-related, and unnecessary/gratuitous discussion of directly sexual topics is both unnecessary and inappropriate in an online gaming context, but any LGBT group shutting down discussion of a gender-fluid segment of the LGBT community (representing a big part of its history and culture) seems overzealous and wrong-headed.

To prevent such misunderstandings, maybe put in something about in-game chat being expected to be mostly game-related? Or to keep that kind of discussion primarily in the off-topic areas of the forums? I don't know what an equitable compromise on that sort of thing looks like, but I think there really should be one.

There's no issue with off-topic or non-game related topics in Fleet Chat. It's good for us to converse about non-game stuff, as well! We all know that STO or GW2 all have their slow periods and its important that we as a community have other topics to talk about than just those.

Drag isn't sexual. It's for entertainment and comedic purposes. I, personally, agree that such gender bending topics like trans issues or drag should be able to be talked about freely in a glbta community. (Albeit, we'd still need to stay clear of Transvestism.) This almost seems more like an opportunity to educate our community on gender than a need for moderation. This is also a great example of why we need to standardize and clarify our Community Guidelines.

The Charter, under "Conduct and Violations" Section 2, states:

Reported Violations of the Code of Conduct or Community Guidelines will be investigated and processed by the Officers of SGN to determine their validity, extent and necessary penalty.

What policy will govern complaints or reported violations of the officers themselves?

There are also two Section 3s in this area. The second Section 3 seems redundant.

Section 1 contains an incomplete sentence that sounds important: "All Violations of the Code of Conduct or Community Guidelines"

The Code of Conduct seems pretty good to me.

The Community Guidelines document needs to be fleshed out more with additional clarifications, in order to minimize the potential for vague statements to be interpreted in different ways. Consider adding examples (with a "these are just examples" disclaimer) to help members understand what's acceptable and what's not. Consider clarifying the drug and alcohol sentence; I think "casual vs. hard drugs" could be quite controversial. Same for "suitable situations" for profanity and "gratuitous discussion of adult activities." While it might not be possible to exactly nail these down, clarifying statements and examples could go a long way towards helping members understand your intent.

Quote by georgiadawg83

The Charter, under "Conduct and Violations" Section 2, states:

Reported Violations of the Code of Conduct or Community Guidelines will be investigated and processed by the Officers of SGN to determine their validity, extent and necessary penalty.

What policy will govern complaints or reported violations of the officers themselves?

They should be reported directly to me. I'll handle the issue and include the rest of the Officers when its appropriate.

Quote by georgiadawg83

There are also two Section 3s in this area. The second Section 3 seems redundant.

Section 1 contains an incomplete sentence that sounds important: "All Violations of the Code of Conduct or Community Guidelines"

Thanks for point that out. I thought I had finished that sentence. Its mean to define what a Violation is.

Quote by georgiadawg83

The Community Guidelines document needs to be fleshed out more with additional clarifications, in order to minimize the potential for vague statements to be interpreted in different ways. Consider adding examples (with a "these are just examples" disclaimer) to help members understand what's acceptable and what's not. Consider clarifying the drug and alcohol sentence; I think "casual vs. hard drugs" could be quite controversial. Same for "suitable situations" for profanity and "gratuitous discussion of adult activities." While it might not be possible to exactly nail these down, clarifying statements and examples could go a long way towards helping members understand your intent.

I don't want to get that specific with the guidelines for that very reason. There's too many possibilities and loop holes to draw exact examples. Instead, the next step will be training the leadership on exactly what should and shouldn't be moderated.

They should be reported directly to me. I'll handle the issue and include the rest of the Officers when its appropriate.

That sounds great; I would like to see that included in the document.

I don't want to get that specific with the guidelines for that very reason. There's too many possibilities and loop holes to draw exact examples.

Fair point.

Instead, the next step will be training the leadership on exactly what should and shouldn't be moderated.

I think this is a great idea. Consistency is key to us understanding what to expect.

I'm liking it. The COC and CG are more compact, so there is a bigger chance more people will read it.
I like the tiny bit of history about SGN in the charter at the top. It shows that this is more than just a random fleet or guild.

You have my total approval of the changes. I think they are short, sweet and to the point. I personally like knowing the mission and vision of any organization I'm a part of.

I am so glad these have been updated. I think the fact that its short and sweet but still maintains the essence of the original charter is perfect. Thank you Nick for taking the time to updates these. Cheers!!!

Excellent revision, Nick. To the point and easy to understand. Short enough to keep wandering minds from not reading everything and helps to minimize loop hole possibilities while still implementing the roles and responsibilities of the membership.

I suggest that you include a statement of definitions as section 1 of your CoC to define some of the words that you are using in order to provide an established definition. You greatly reduce the potentional of personal interpretation or ambiguity; example people may have their own definition of the words "drugs" or "sexual harassment" -both words are also broad subjects. Meriam Webster Online Dictionary is a great site to help you form the basis of a definition.

Part of the ambiguity re the term "drugs" can probably be attributed to the varying legality of marijuana from state to state, too. Maybe go with "substance abuse" instead? That might make the issue clearer without the need to specify any particular substance.

Quote by Teknomancer

Part of the ambiguity re the term "drugs" can probably be attributed to the varying legality of marijuana from state to state, too. Maybe go with "substance abuse" instead? That might make the issue clearer without the need to specify any particular substance.

Yes, a statement of definitions would hash out this issue by telling the reader how a word is being used.

Example
"Section 1 Definitions
The following are definitions for words used for this Code of Conduct.
1. "Drugs" means something and often an illegal or legal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change inconsciousness."

Quote by Zander_Hawk

I suggest that you include a statement of definitions as section 1 of your CoC to define some of the words that you are using in order to provide an established definition. You greatly reduce the potentional of personal interpretation or ambiguity; example people may have their own definition of the words "drugs" or "sexual harassment" -both words are also broad subjects. Meriam Webster Online Dictionary is a great site to help you form the basis of a definition.

This isn't a legal document and doesn't need to be that complex. If people aren't sure what drugs or sexual harassment mean, they can look them up on Meriam Webster's Online Dictionary. :P

Quote by Teknomancer

Part of the ambiguity re the term "drugs" can probably be attributed to the varying legality of marijuana from state to state, too. Maybe go with "substance abuse" instead? That might make the issue clearer without the need to specify any particular substance.

That could be a good idea. What does everyone else think?

Quote by NicholasJohn16

Quote by Zander_Hawk

I suggest that you include a statement of definitions as section 1 of your CoC to define some of the words that you are using in order to provide an established definition. You greatly reduce the potentional of personal interpretation or ambiguity; example people may have their own definition of the words "drugs" or "sexual harassment" -both words are also broad subjects. Meriam Webster Online Dictionary is a great site to help you form the basis of a definition.

This isn't a legal document and doesn't need to be that complex. If people aren't sure what drugs or sexual harassment mean, they can look them up on Meriam Webster's Online Dictionary. :P

Definitions are good way to establish a common understanding between people. Statement of definitions are used in all sorts of types of documents, legal, non-legal, etc. The Code of Conduct may not be a legally binding document but it creates rules for people to follow and a breach of those rules result in consequences. So, if a person is going to be subject to consequences as a result of not following the rules, it's important for them to know how you are using certain words when setting out those rules.

The definitions can be complex or very simple. It's just a suggestion to minimize ambiguity, you've gone this long without one so I'm sure you'll be fine but I figured that since you are making adjustments now, you add it to your CoC.

I like it :)

I really like the new documents, they are short and easy to understand!

Quote by Zander_Hawk

Quote by NicholasJohn16

Quote by Zander_Hawk

I suggest that you include a statement of definitions as section 1 of your CoC to define some of the words that you are using in order to provide an established definition. You greatly reduce the potentional of personal interpretation or ambiguity; example people may have their own definition of the words "drugs" or "sexual harassment" -both words are also broad subjects. Meriam Webster Online Dictionary is a great site to help you form the basis of a definition.

This isn't a legal document and doesn't need to be that complex. If people aren't sure what drugs or sexual harassment mean, they can look them up on Meriam Webster's Online Dictionary. :P

Definitions are good way to establish a common understanding between people. Statement of definitions are used in all sorts of types of documents, legal, non-legal, etc. The Code of Conduct may not be a legally binding document but it creates rules for people to follow and a breach of those rules result in consequences. So, if a person is going to be subject to consequences as a result of not following the rules, it's important for them to know how you are using certain words when setting out those rules.

The definitions can be complex or very simple. It's just a suggestion to minimize ambiguity, you've gone this long without one so I'm sure you'll be fine but I figured that since you are making adjustments now, you add it to your CoC.

Stonewall is a multinational guild with a diverse membership. It's very easy for misunderstandings to arise between members who speak English, nevermind members who are not native English speakers. Adding definitions to the Core Documentation will: a) Help make the documentation easier to understand for members at large; b) make it simpler for leadership to interpret when an infringement has taken place.

In my opinion, terms like "drugs" and "adult content" are too vague to be interpreted with consensus by a highly diverse group of people. In some countries, drugs refer to illegal substances only; in others, it refers to all types of medication. Similarly, adult content can be delineated as 17+, 18+ or 21+ in different countries.

The game itself is rated "Teen" by the ESRB, meaning that its content is considered suitable for ages 13 and up. When dealing with a membership base that may include young people of that age, I think it's even more crucial to be specific about definitions in the Core Documentation.

There you go, terms of this nature are a great example, so you'd reduce ambiguity upfront. The definitions section can be small and easy, it doesn't have to be complex. The section would define terms like PG-13. Example "PG-13" as used in this code of conduct means material not appropriate for people under the age of 13...[insert futher definition language, etc.]