Chapter 1, Sec 3 - Previous work on the code of conduct

[Luke Hill]

Hey guys,

This is the draft code of conduct I previously posted and got general agreement on. If that's still the case, cool. If not, then we can talk about alterations here and anything else that needs to go into it to round out section three, "what's expected of me as a member?"

Play Honestly and Play Fairly
a.       Use the rules, in their current form, as written and as intended
b.      Keep abreast of club- and game-specific rules, and use them where appropriate
c.       Only portray those traits you are approved to play, and have purchased legitimately
d.      Never portray a character at a game without the prior approval of the storyteller of that game
e.      Never use meta-game knowledge for your benefit

Create and Maintain a Positive Play Environment
a.       Be honest, kind, fair and forgiving to other players
b.      Try to resolve your differences with other players immediately
c.       Try to help others have fun their way; do not assume they play the same way you do
d.      Involve others in the action whenever possible
e.      Respect the boundaries of other players; when they ask you to stop, stop

Model Ethical Behavior, especially as an officer
a.       Punish and praise with fairness and consistency
b.      Do not allow personal grievances or relationships to affect your decisions
c.       Know and follow the rules at all times, and manage/decide them fairly for all players
d.      Be especially careful of knowledge gained as an officer, guarding that it does not benefit you as a player

 Follow the law
a.       Respect the laws of city, county, state and country
Be especially mindful of laws governing alcohol, noise ordinances, public gatherings, and other ordinances that may apply to gatherings that get loud or go on late into the night
b.      Report illegal behavior to the proper authorities

Whaddya think?

Luke

[Kelley McMahan]

My only suggestion.

Under follow the law. item B. I would like to offer this suggestion. change wording to "All proper authorities" 

Kelley McMahan

GWB2007060149

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Games Without Borders - Membership Handbook Review" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gwb-mh-revie...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to gwb-mh...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gwb-mh-review?hl=en-GB.
 
 

[Games Without Borders NC]

> This is the draft code of conduct I previously posted and got general
> agreement on. If that's still the case, cool. If not, then we can talk about
> alterations here and anything else that needs to go into it to round out
> section three, "what's expected of me as a member?"

I would ask for a preamble to state that the Code of Conduct (or the
Code) are the standards which are expected of members for how they
should act. They are not to be, and will not be, used as a reverse
engineered standard with which Coordinators or Storytellers may punish
members for transgressing.

Cheers,
Liam

--
Liam T. Draper - UK2001061047 - NC Games Without Borders
IRC: Liam-OOC / Email: gir.coo...@gmail.com /
http://gameswithoutbordersltd.wordpress.com
"Whether you like it or whether you don't, it's the best thing going
today." - Ric Flair

[Games Without Borders NC]

> Model Ethical Behavior, especially as an officer

The title/headline doesn't sit right for me. I'd suggest 'Promote
Ethical Behaviour'

> a. Punish and praise with fairness and consistency
> b. Do not allow personal grievances or relationships to affect your
> decisions
> c. Know and follow the rules at all times, and manage/decide them
> fairly for all players

Amend 'players' to 'members'.

> d. Be especially careful of knowledge gained as an officer, guarding
> that it does not benefit you as a player

> Follow the law
> a. Respect the laws of city, county, state and country

Amend to 'Respect the laws of the jurisdiction you are in.' Not every
member will be in a country where there is a county or a state. For
example: we'll be incorporating in England and England doesn't have
city, county, state or federal law. We have members living outside of
the US and outside of England and I'm not sure what sort of laws they
have so the above phrasing, I think, covers all potential situations.

> Be especially mindful of laws governing alcohol, noise ordinances, public
> gatherings, and other ordinances that may apply to gatherings that get loud
> or go on late into the night
> b. Report illegal behavior to the proper authorities

This is more of a inquiry re: Kelley's proposed change.

What is the advantage of 'report illegal behaviour to all proper
authorities' vs 'report illegal behaviour to the proper authorities'?

[Kelley McMahan]

In response to the question posed to me.

This is more of a inquiry re: Kelley's proposed change.

What is the advantage of 'report illegal behaviour to all proper
authorities' vs 'report illegal behaviour to the proper authorities'?

Con story from several years ago. We had a member touching other members in an offensive and/or unwanted manner. The incident was reported to security team, deputy and lead. Someone in their infinate wisdom informed the sponsoring groups club chairperson. When security advocated reporting the official complaint to law enforcement as an attempted sexual assault said chairperson overrode in the interest of protecting the public image of said club. So Security staff, some were in RL involved in civil law enforcement were required to ignore a reported crime. Given the chance I would like to ensure that the conduct requirements never place any member in that position ever again.

Kelley McMahan

GWB2007060149

[Games Without Borders NC]

> What is the advantage of 'report illegal behaviour to all proper
> authorities' vs 'report illegal behaviour to the proper authorities'?

> Con story from several years ago. We had a member touching other members in
> an offensive and/or unwanted manner. The incident was reported to security
> team, deputy and lead.

> Someone in their infinate wisdom informed the sponsoring groups club chairperson.
> When security advocated reporting the official complaint to law enforcement as an
> attempted sexual assault said chairperson overrode in the interest of protecting the
> public image of said club.

OK, so a few questions I have are:

Are group leaders a 'proper authority' for the purposes of this Code?

Are members required to ignore allegations of criminal activity if a
request to do so is made by a club leader?

> So Security staff, some were in RL involved in civil law enforcement
> were required to ignore a reported crime. Given the chance I would like to
> ensure that the conduct requirements never place any member in that position
> ever again.

Me personally, I would have either reported it or encouraged the
complainant to report it regardless of the group leader's desire to
save face.

However, back on topic: in the example you've shared, what difference
would there be, as a matter of practice, if it said 'report illegal
behaviour to all proper authorities' as opposed to 'report illegal

behaviour to the proper authorities'?

[Kelley McMahan]

Club management overrode what should have been handed off to local legal authorities. And in most states not notifying the police opens up civil liability. and in some cases criminal as well. (If you know of a crime and do not report it you are an accessory after the fact.)

[Games Without Borders NC]

> Club management overrode what should have been handed off to local legal
> authorities. And in most states not notifying the police opens up civil
> liability. and in some cases criminal as well. (If you know of a crime and
> do not report it you are an accessory after the fact.)

Putting that to one side, as I agree that the decisions made in that
example were faulty, I'll reiterate the most important question:

In the example you shared, what difference would there be, as a matter

[Kelley McMahan]

Changing that simple wording would allow a member to override a lead or even a BoD member when it comes to alerting legal authorities if it were required.

Kelley McMahan

GWB2007060149

[Luke Hill]

Re: "the proper authorities" vs. "all proper authorities"

Well, to be fair, with either wording a board member or club director or really anyone, would be in the wrong to prevent it being reported to said authorities. Accepting their ability to override, and making that decision to override, is itself a breach of the rules. Of course, that gets to a "who watches the watchers" scenario, since it's hard to punish someone who is of sufficient personal authority when they err, but that's still the ideal scenario.

That said, though, I think the change is fine. It wont really affect anything, imo, so it wont hurt anything either way. If you think it'll help, though, then I'm okay with that. It costs us nothing to parse the words a bit more finely there.

Luke

[Games Without Borders NC]

> Changing that simple wording would allow a member to override a lead or even
> a BoD member when it comes to alerting legal authorities if it were
> required.

I'm not persuaded that, on a practical level, the substitution of 'the' to 'all' makes a significant difference or that it would permit a member to act in the manner you described.

I think that provision/entry would be better written if it said:

b. Behaviour, that is not permissible under the law and is criminal in nature, should be reported to law enforcement authorities as well as an appropriate member acting in an officer capacity that, at the time the behaviour took place, has jurisdiction over the member.
c. Behaviour, that is not permissible under the law and is tortious in nature, should be reported to an appropriate member acting in an officer capacity that, at the time the behaviour takes place, has jurisdiction over the member.

I think that satisfies the circumstance where a RPG group leader says "We should keep this hush hush to protect the club's reputation" and a member feels that they should report it.

[Luke Hill]

Liam,

With all due respect, if I need a law degree (ex: "tortious" - which *I* understand, but I doubt most people do) to decipher the code of conduct, there is a problem. Getting the basic meaning without legalese is an absolute necessity, given that most of the people reading the handbook and using the handbook, and even most of the people enforcing the handbook, will not be lawyers. I agree that the handbook should be written with the principle of saying what we mean, exactly, so that the rules aren't abused in either substance or absence, but we should also keep in mind that precision must be married to clarity and simplicity, or else we'll open other avenues to other sorts of abuse.

Luke

--

[Games Without Borders NC]

Hi Luke,

> With all due respect, if I need a law degree (ex: "tortious" - which *I*
> understand, but I doubt most people do) to decipher the code of conduct,
> there is a problem.

I don't think people need a law degree to decipher the code of conduct.

Tortious as the example cited is not, I feel, a difficult word to
understand or to look up. When I see a word I do not understand or
have not come across before, I often go to the Dictionary to find out
what that word means. If it is a contentious word that needs
explanation, we can include a footnote that explains it in the context
which it is meant, or a link to a website that explains it.

Or, if we replaced it, what would we replace it with?

> Getting the basic meaning without legalese is an absolute necessity, given that
> most of the people reading the handbook and using the handbook, and even
> most of the people enforcing the handbook, will not be lawyers. I agree that the
> handbook should be written with the principle of saying what we mean, exactly,
> so that the rules aren't abused in either substance or absence, but we should
> also keep in mind that precision must be married to clarity and simplicity, or else
> we'll open other avenues to other sorts of abuse.

"b. Behaviour, that is not permissible under the law and is criminal
in nature, should be reported to law enforcement authorities as well
as an appropriate member acting in an officer capacity that, at the
time the behaviour took place, has jurisdiction over the member."

What I take from this when I think about the basic and plain meaning
is that: if someone is doing a criminal act, the police and an officer
that has jurisdiction over the member should be told.

This covers situations where member A receives a threatening email
from member B, promising to physically assault member A. Local law
enforcement would be appropriate to contact as would the Domain
Coordinator were member A and B part of the same domain or the
National Coordinator if member A and member B do not share the same
domain.

It also covers the situation where, for example, member A has been
touched without the permission in a sexual way by member B and this
occurs at a convention event where the Event Coordinator is
responsible for and vested with the jurisdiction over the members in
attendance.

It would not cover situations where a member, who is not at an event
or not involved in a club related activity, does an illegal act.

"c. Behaviour, that is not permissible under the law and is tortious
in nature, should be reported to an appropriate member acting in an
officer capacity that, at the time the behaviour takes place, has
jurisdiction over the member."

What I take from this when I think about the basic and plain meaning
is that: if someone is doing an act is a civil wrong or that is
contrary to the law of tort, the officer that has jurisdiction over
the member should be told.

So, depending on where it happens, it could be the Event Coordinator
you tell, the Domain Coordinator or the National Coordinator who
should be told.

This is because there are certain actions which are not covered by the
criminal law, but are covered by the civil law, and we want to know if
those kinds of activities are going on just as much as if someone is
breaking the law, especially when those activities are involving other
members but only as they pertain to club activities.

'Illegal' as a word isn't clear enough in explaining the full range of
situations that we want to cover. Someone might see illegal and
reasonably conclude that illegal means actions that the criminal law
punishes.

For example:

Member D tells anyone who will listen how Member C is a member who
breaks the law: could be that he's saying he's a thief, a drug user or
a sex offender. Member D's behaviour might not breach the criminal law
but Member C feels that Member D's behaviour is intolerable because he
is saying untruthful things that are affecting his reputation. This
could be a libel. You might not have a recourse under the criminal law
to complain, but if a member is libelling another member, we'd want to
know.

Member E and Member F are at an event. Member E says to Member F "If
you kill my character tonight, I'm going to find you and beat the
stuffing out of you". This could be criminal depending on the
jurisdiction's assault laws, it is potentially an assault under the
civil law. The police might not need to be contacted but, again, we
would want to know.

[Amanda Spikol]

YES! I +1 this and Like it and RT it. I was once involved in a situation where I was harassed in a physical manner and the coord on duty told me that if I called the police I would be kicked out of the club right there and then (for drawing negative attention to the club). NO MEMBER should ever need to be in that situation and I think the second a law is broken, it should be then the purview of local authorities.

- Amanda S.

GWB2007029463

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Games Without Borders - Membership Handbook Review" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gwb-mh-revie...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to gwb-mh...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gwb-mh-review?hl=en-GB.
 
 

--
- Amanda Spikol

[Luke Hill]

Liam,

Tortious as the example cited is not, I feel, a difficult word to understand or to look up. When I see a word I do not understand or have not come across before, I often go to the Dictionary to find out what that word means. If it is a contentious word that needs explanation, we can include a footnote that explains it in the context which it is meant, or a link to a website that explains it.

Yes, okay, I also use Merriam-Webster to check myself, but if you need a dictionary to read chapter 1 of the member handbook, to figure out the code of conduct, then you have to accept that a fair number of prospective members will either not know the code of conduct because they will never look it up, or will never become members because the code of conduct is sufficiently impenetrable that it drives them away and they don't want to be held to expectations they can't understand.

I suggest keeping it simple:

If you witness something illegal, report it to the proper law enforcement authorities and to whomever is in charge of the event you are attending.

That covers basically all of what you're trying to cover, and demands much less of the reader.

Luke

[Games Without Borders NC]

Luke,

> Yes, okay, I also use Merriam-Webster to check myself, but if you need a
> dictionary to read chapter 1 of the member handbook, to figure out the code
> of conduct, then you have to accept that a fair number of prospective
> members will either not know the code of conduct because they will never
> look it up, or will never become members because the code of conduct is
> sufficiently impenetrable that it drives them away and they don't want to be
> held to expectations they can't understand.

1. I suggested that "if it is a word that needs explanation, we can
include a footnote that explains it in the context which it is meant".
I think this is a practical solution that meets the existing needs of
clarity and simplicity. This gives us, for example, the option of
spelling out specifically which civil wrongs we want to be told about
so assault, battery, false imprisonment, libel, slander, etc. are
covered but noise pollution or land based torts would not be covered.

2. If we extend the principle you're advocating beyond legal
terminology, what we are saying is actually "don't use big, fancy
words in case members don't understand them". If that's a theme or
feature of how the Handbook will be written then we should make sure
that we are consistent to that principle. It may, however, make later
sections difficult to write. If we avoid particular words because some
people might not understand them and they either have no desire to
learn or feel that it is such a sufficient barrier that they choose
not to read it, who's interests are we actually benefitting?

> If you witness something illegal, report it to the proper law enforcement
> authorities and to whomever is in charge of the event you are attending.
>
> That covers basically all of what you're trying to cover, and demands much
> less of the reader.

I don't think I agree that it offers the same coverage. For the
reasons I'll explain:

As I said in my previous email, someone without a law degree might
reasonably conclude that illegal means against the criminal law. We
would therefore not be notified in the example of torts like libel or
slander. We and the Police would only be notified when a member feels
activity is criminal.

It focuses on someone who witnesses the event. Let's consider a
circumstance where member A is the recipient of an unwanted sexual
touching. They report it to the Coordinator in charge of the
convention they're attending but they don't want to report it to law
enforcement authorities, for whatever reason, under the provision
you've proposed members who didn't witness the event are not
encouraged to report it.

It also has a limitation in that you are encouraged to report activity
that happens at an event, so if you are emailed a libellous comment
someone has made, because it didn't happen at an event, you're not
encouraged to report it.

I don't think that covers what the previous propoal was attempting to cover.

[Luke Hill]

Liam,

Okay. I'm not nearly invested enough in this to keep fighting with you. If you really think that's better, I'll go with what you suggested, despite believing that it's a whole lot of extra ink and extra confusion for no substantial benefit.

Luke

[Games Without Borders NC]

Hey Luke,

I'm sorry that you think we're fighting. Something that might help you
understand where I'm coming from is that I see this discussion as less
of a fight and more of an exchange and evaluation of ideas.

My investment is only so far as to get a code that is clear, concise
and precise, encourages members to do the right thing and to let us
(and the police) know when another member is impacting their
experience in GWB in a way which is prohibited by the criminal law or
the civil law.

I think what I proposed does that with sufficient clarity and
simplicity, providing there's a footnote to explain tortious, so
members can read it and know exactly what we mean without having to
consult an external source.

[Luke Hill]

Liam,

I'm sorry that you think we're fighting. Something that might help you understand where I'm coming from is that I see this discussion as less of a fight and more of an exchange and evaluation of ideas.

I don't evaluate ideas via argumentation; I evaluate them by examining relevant objective criteria tied to those ideas. So, argument is just argument to me, unless and until objective evidence becomes part of the argument.

I think what I proposed does that with sufficient clarity and simplicity, providing there's a footnote to explain tortious, so members can read it and know exactly what we mean without having to consult an external source.

And I think that if our code of conduct needs footnotes, a dictionary, and/or a vocabulary that is usually only obtained after advanced post-secondary education (excepting those terms in general use within the gamer community, which we can reasonably expect members to know), then there is a problem. But if that's not the general consensus, then I'll stop being a stick in the mud and let us progress to other things.

Luke

[Jessi Sauter]

> And I think that if our code of conduct needs footnotes, a dictionary,
> and/or a vocabulary that is usually only obtained after advanced
> post-secondary education (excepting those terms in general use within the
> gamer community, which we can reasonably expect members to know), then there
> is a problem. But if that's not the general consensus, then I'll stop being
> a stick in the mud and let us progress to other things.

Love you both. But Luke is right here.

Jessi

--
Jessi Sauter
GWB2002023219

[Guy]

I'm going to put my 2 cents worth in as a person who has worked Tech support, has been an ST and an Ombudsman, and has had to deal with both verbal and written communications with people of various educational backgrounds.

Reading for comprehension skills in the United States are Abysmal. Luke's concern with regards to complexity is, unfortunately, well documented in research and is something that I can confirm through my personal observations interacting with people in the technical support world and as an ST who has had to do most of his work online rather than in person. While I certainly hope that things are not as bad in the UK, we also have to deal with potential members whose native language may not be English.

I knew instantly what Liam meant by Tortuous. I'm also fairly certain that those of us on this list are the exception, rather than the rule, when it comes to reading for comprehension skills.

Liam, I can tell you that your phrasing will come across to the Average American [TM] as legalese. I think Luke has a legitimate concern here. We can solve this one of several ways. 

1) We can simplify the wording to keep it simple enough that people actually take the time to read it and actually understand it, even if their reading for comprehension skills are significantly lower than the people on this list

2) we can keep the more precise wording and accept the fact that some people won't bother to read or won't understand what we're saying and will rely on other people to explain the rules to them

3) we can choose to recruit only people with a certain level of reading for comprehension skills. 

I don't advocate solution #3, mind you, but maybe we only want to attract above-average Americans ;)

Please do not take this as criticism of your writing or of your desire to be precise. I am acutely aware of this issue in part because I often have made the same sort of mistake in my writing style (writing above the audience's level of reading skill) and have had this issue sort of beat into me at work. We have to accept the realities on the ground, as it were, and they are often not as pleasant as we would like them to be.

Guy Seggev

GWB199511-039