Code of conduct
This is a working group, not a comment section. The whole point is disagreement — conducted so that the disagreement is useful.
The one rule
Argue with the clause, not the person.
Everything below is a consequence of that. If a post attacks a person rather than a position, it is off-topic here regardless of whether the position is right.
What is welcome
- Dissent. Objections are a post type. If you think a clause should not exist, say so and say why — that is recorded, not suppressed.
- Specific wording. "This is vague" is a comment. "Replace it with the following sentence" is an amendment. Both are useful; only the second can be voted on.
- Inconvenient evidence. If a clause cannot be implemented, say so with what you know. Clause 5.4 asks for evidence over assertion; it applies to the people writing the document too.
- Declared interests. If your employer, client or catalogue is affected by a clause, say so in the post. Nobody is disqualified by an interest — only by hiding one.
What is not
- Personal attacks, harassment, or pile-ons. Including subtle ones: sneering, repeated bad-faith questions, following someone across threads.
- Discrimination. Nothing that demeans anyone on grounds of race, sex, gender, sexuality, disability, religion, age or class. This is not negotiable and is not a matter of tone.
- Sales. No promoting your product as the answer. Naming a standard or tool as an example is fine; pitching is not — clause 5.3 exists for a reason.
- Coordinated voting. One account, one person, one vote. Organising a bloc to swamp a clause is the fastest way to have an amendment discounted rather than carried.
- Sockpuppets. Multiple accounts, accounts in false names, or an account run by someone other than the named person. Every place is checked by a human precisely so this stays rare.
- Posting other people's personal data. Including screenshots of private correspondence.
Everything here is public and named
Your name and organisation appear beside everything you post. That is deliberate: a document arguing that attribution is infrastructure cannot run an anonymous forum. Assume anything you write may be quoted, in public, with your name on it, for years.
Your email address is never shown. If being publicly named creates a real risk for you — and for some people it does — write to us before registering and we will discuss a pseudonymous account tied to a verified real identity held privately. Clause 2.6 recognises pseudonymous credit; so do we.
Moderation
Moderation is done by named administrators, and every action is written to an audit log with who did it and when. In order of severity:
| What happens | When |
|---|---|
| A reply asking you to reframe | First time, borderline cases, heat rather than malice |
| A post hidden, with the reason recorded | Personal attacks, discrimination, doxxing, spam |
| Account suspended | Repeat behaviour after a warning, or a single serious incident |
| Account removed and register entry withdrawn | Harassment campaigns, sockpuppets, coordinated manipulation |
Hidden posts are not deleted. The record of the consultation stays intact — that is a principle of the document, and it applies to moderation as much as to erasure.
Appeals
Every moderation decision can be appealed by replying to the email you receive, or writing to the contact address in the privacy notice. Appeals are read by an administrator other than the one who made the decision. You will get an answer, with a reason, within five working days.
Reporting something
Email the address in the privacy notice with a link to the post. Reports are confidential to the administrators. If the person you need to report is an administrator, say so and it goes to the owner account instead.