Softer sanctions - Prototype and feedback

Our Design Process
1

Submitted design: MVP

Design v2.0

2

Design v1.0

Excalidraw map

3

Feedback Daniel on v1.0

25/03/2025

  • they call their “mediators” a conflict resolution circle

  • likes that it’s not visible to everyone (ppl take sides easily)

  • theoretically resolve conflict on the chat

  • maybe on the chat something nice to make the “accused” relax. tips for that person on what to do

  • not very clear the add button (add more design?)

  • looking at the limiting by places

    • makes sense to limit by place type? if there’s a lot of places
    • selecting places make sense too
    • makes sense for their food saving project

  • like that the summary is shown again

  • temporarily block access is very interesting for them (because how they have different groups doing different things)

    • happens now after a warning
    • case that people get blocked from more than one group, kind of special in that case. Solution to start the issue in the other group

  • likes the thing about no putting someone on the shame wall (not visible to everyone)

  • I’m the mediator, do I assign it myself? how can others see it if one is taking care of it

  • no rule at the moment but having the option presented the group would consider having this rule/option, nice to have another level

  • discussion on icon/symbol: would not use the flag

  • like the same text in issues page appears when starting an issue

  • assigning role mediator

    • prevent that the person in the issue can self-assign the mediator role to mediate themselves

  • attachments? they have it on their forms, maybe a nice idea

Their reporting system now is a Google form: https://forms.gle/Q36nNnyKJ8CQb4eY9

Overall impressions: would be useful to their group, can even consider adopting an extra level of sanctions officially in their group now that there is the technical possibility

Feedback Karrot team

Nick:

Liked it

last time: complexity. replace the issues, looks better. more explicitly needing a mediator

no mega-group wide thing, restricted.

gets rid of score voting (still believes can be good, but never heard feedback of ppl using it). Willing to accept it’s not that good

big change is empowering someone with a role to take a decision

range of sanctions did not process in detail. Looks reasonable.

trust on experience on what is needed

like the way it interacts with roles, even in the mockups

open questions:

- does this mean removing current membership review?

- how to show historic or ongoing? It phases out?

- could be nice to use the code

- role: self assignment? Is it sufficient? (might seem too open)

- maybe trnasition to more fancy ways of having roles

- liked the group-defined text on how to deal with an issue

- visibility: not entrely sure what the issue page would look like. Someone implicated sees their own issue? When add the people to the chat, does it imply visibility to the chat?

- one report - one target. How to handle the outcome of another person? (including someone else)

- how to communicate the feature to the groups (maybe tutorial)

Vas:

Nick covered more than think.

Question:

- hard-coded that should be a mediator? Is there another way?

- revoke/change decision. should mediators be able to claim a case (mediator wars)

- how to get notified about a block? how does it look like?

Nathalie:

Would need to have a look at it again

Likes the conceptual clarity of having issue first, then other step of what to do.

Still processing the number of information (replace membership)

Two thing hesitant about:

- introducing mediator role: nice for groups operating this way. What about groups not operating this way? Group governance related. Do they really need mediators? Part of it thinks no.

- mediation as a word, a process, but no decision-making implied. Maybe another name?

- someone blocking another person maybe looses status of mediation

- is it possible to design without the mediator role?

-–

- another sanction: take a role away

- who has the power to make a decision? As a result of consensus

- role as being the one who has the power

- membership review as one category of sanctions?

- make group-wide decision (applies to all)?

- tricky to do te whole thing, a lot of things opening up

- what term: conflict facilitator?

- make a couple of scenarios

testing with people in groups

leave membership review as it is

wonder if it still be ok to assign to editor. Leave permissions for later

- standalone of sanctions separate from mebmership review

- remember!! membership review = remve from group in the context of deciding sanctions

- remember!! consider our limited capacities

Next steps:

contacting people

BIG QUESTIONS:

- ROLE (NAME?)

- MEMBERSHIP REVIEW

Nathalie again

  • governance mode
  • removing from circle/ team/ group and apply sanctions two different kind of things
  • in sociocracy removing someone from a circle is in the circle’s power… didn’t see that power hand-off to a role
    • although in practice all software has admin roles, so I see that roles have the ability to block/remove users from software, but that’s not the same as their governing membership
    • here software = governance in a way
    • although… what about removing someone from the org? maybe some kind of membership person can do his
  • I don’t like the idea that group removal is a ‘sanction’ applied to a person, rather the outcome of a process
    • could also be fixed by wording
    • should the naming be outcome-oriented (removal/ sanction) or process oriented (deal with issue/ conflict engagement)
  • but I see that the need to think about removal might come out of a sanction discussion
  • → leave the two separate!
  • permissions perspective: in my design there isn’t an explicit permission ‘remove member’, but ‘apply sanction’
  • could add that as a permission somewhere, but maybe needs more thinking?
  • → leave the two separate!
  • coming back to the question: should mediators have the permission to remove someone
  • agree to rename membership review (again)
  • membership removal? coming back to call it what it is
  • also scope!!! the feature is ‘softer sanctions’ and not rework membership review
    • although we’re not really happy with the membership review, are we?
    • opportunity to try something new! and iterate from there?
  • keep two menu entries?
    • Issues (Membership removal)
    • Sanctions
  • two buttons on profile?
    • Start a membership review? / Propose member removal
    • Start an issue / Propose sanctions
  • in the default text for ‘your groups guidelines’. mention NVC? or other resources? reach out for outside help?
    • review this one more time before publishing (doesn’t stop the coding)
    • we’re always talking about adding more resources… multi-lingual would be good
  • don’t know where the transparency conversation is at, but shouldn’t the group know when a person is blocked from somewhere for a while?
    • if I want to write them and wonder why no one replies or something?
    • obviously don’t want to ‘shame’ anyone
  • do all with mediator role see all issues and are added to all conversations?
    • that’s how I understand it
  • how can we make sure we have consent from all when someone is added to the issue conversation? as they can see what was previously said
    • or maybe they shouldn’t see the history! would make sense to me too
  • what happens when mediator role not assigned?
    • you shouldn’t be able to submit issues when no one is mediator → sets false expectations! that something will happen, but nothing ever will (huge problem in foodsharing that ‘reports’ piled up and no one took care of it them)
    • I still like the idea that members should deal with their little conflicts themselves when possible (but that’s probably something that the group’s policy should state)
  • have a space on the forum where groups can share their conflict engagement policies
  • who is in the conversation
    • mediators
    • person who started issue, right?
    • NOT the person the issue is about. But could be added through the ‘add’ feature to facilitate a moderated conversation between two??
  • when someone is blocked from the group immediately and then the membership removal is started, they could be removed in their absence?
    • thinking about abusive cases, would be good if someone could just remove them quickly. but that way could also work block + discuss
    • or blocking would still give them access to membership removal?
    • how does the blocking really look like?
  • issue with mediator?
  • new idea: pick a mediator at the beginning and only add them to conversation
    • → actually might be too inflexible

Summary

  • Backlog: iterate Membership review (membership removal)/ Issues process
  • don’t touch Membership review conceptually (still group-wide voting)
    • rename to Membership removal
    • mediators don’t have the permission to remove someone!
    • Idea: in the decide menu it could say: membership removal, bring to whole group (to make it clearer)
    • clarified: only mediators can escalate to start Membership removal, not everyone on group can start it
  • Issue page layout for none role holders
    • make visible which issues are membership removal processes (action needed)
    • visibility: show everything except chat
    • don’t show who started the issue (as with current issue page)
    • show outcome
  • Issue page layout for mediators
    • don’t show whole text on issue page, only when opening the chat
    • actually could be the same then for everyone, only with these extra buttons (decide/ chat)
  • Issue chat
    • added members to chat don’t see chat history, but initial message/ report
    • everyone in the conversation can add others
    • all mediators added to chat (all mediators at the moment of opening issue, the ones who come later are not added)
  • text improvements
    • role name: moderator/ mediator?
    • default text for ‘your groups guidelines’. mention NVC (and review whole text again)
  • add ‘remove role’ to sanction list
  • show mediator role holders when starting an issue
    • not allow issue if there is no mediator
  • auto-close issues after [insert rule here tbd]
    • → (auto) comment & archive
  • note: feature doesn’t work if you have a problem with the mediator(s) → that’s ok! it’s only a supporting software feature

29.05.2025 Nathalie & Bruno

  • decision show on overview page
    • show people?
  • decision icon and name
    • ‘outcome’
    • other icon?
  • assign mediator make language clearer
    • work on issue/ take issue
    • you are already a mediator (have the role already)
    • more than 1 is possible
  • who’s added to the chat?
    • initially just the two - to be discussed?
    • once assigned as mediator added to chat
    • see history when added to chat?
    • consistent with initial message when starting issue
  • mediator: permission to start membership review
    • make explicit
  • 1 no one has mediator
  • 2 there is a mediator, but doesn’t take issue
  • auto-close issues?
  • partcipants can close issue themselves if agreement is reached
4

Notes from talk Bruno + Jay

Feedback Jay:

  • Needs more transparency
  • Needs a way to prevent concentration of power

ideas for more transparency:

  • anonymous

  • choose details to be hidden

  • a topic for the issue! Shows to everyone not identifying the people involved

  • up to the person being accused to choose what should be disclosed

  • add more people to chat is also important for the person being “accused”, so they can have that possibility

  • Main question to incorporate in current design: what would we show to everyone in the group?

    • alternatives:
      • Topic (e.g. Being late, stealing, etc.). categories or text field?
      • Decision (e.g. temporary restriction, ban, etc.)

For the future:

  • design further for transparency and accountability
  • Jay starts designing somethng

Jay’s Proposition

  • Public Archive of Decisions: A public register of applied sanctions will be created, accessible to everyone. The names of the accused will be excluded if they prefer privacy. This will increase transparency while respecting individual privacy.
    • Info visible by default
      • Topic (e.g. stealing, behavioural problems, etc.) - single choice
      • Decision (e.g. temporary ban, membership revoked, etc.)
    • Info visible according to will of the recipient
      • Accused decides visibility for
        • their own name/profile
        • the description of the accusation
      • “judge” decides visibility of
        • their own name/profile (associated with judgement)
  • Appeal Process: If the accused contests the decision, an independent appeals committee will be set up. This committee will be dedicated solely to reviewing appeals to avoid conflicts of interest.
  • Rotating Review Panel: The members of the conflict management committee will be regularly renewed, potentially with limited mandates. This approach helps prevent the concentration of power and ensures fresh perspectives.
1 Like