All the way back in 2020 we’ve been discussing softer sanctions to group member’s who break the rules. Now it’s time to get it done!
This a NlNet funded milestone and I’m arranging a few meetings to have a final design on this and implement it. Our final deadline is the end of February 2025. Here’s what it’s all about:
Successful commoning practices require the application of graduated sanctions to members who break the rules established by the group. This has also been a request by groups using Karrot. The sanctions applied should be listed within the group, time limited, and sufficiently flexible (e.g. sanction a member’s participation within a single place in the group). It will also support “offline” sanctions by allowing a text description option that a group has agreed upon.
Before we go to sketches and prototyping, we’ll have to consider some important questions:
who in the group will decide on the sanctions?
how will the process of reporting (if any), deciding and applying the sanction look like?
quick recap, what has been discussed and decided (5 min)
old topic, being discussed at least since 2020. See Softer sanctions
we had conflict resolution process before, now called membership review
had recurring discussions about what happens for situations less harsh than membership review process
time to make it happen! part of our nlnet funding now, feb/march next year deadline
What we’re doing:
Successful commoning practices require the application of graduated sanctions to members who break the rules established by the group. This has also been a request by groups using Karrot. The sanctions applied should be listed within the group, time limited, and sufficiently flexible (e.g. sanction a member’s participation within a single place in the group). It will also support “offline” sanctions by allowing a text description option that a group has agreed upon.
Discussion (10-20 min, depending on which groups are present)
What happens when people misbehave or break the rules? What are their challenges? (Karolina reporting for FSW. Bruno or Joakim for Solikyl)
Karolina in fsw
most important point is two groups of conflicts, technical or personal
complex situations, doing everything on karrot only, is not enough
so we have an external system, and go back to karrot only if we used all the options available
there is a few people in the team that work on the topics, and at the end somebody from the group puts the outcome to the rest of the group in karrot
would be nice if karrot could support the things we currently do on the side
big discussion/problem about this subgroup, should be 5 people everyone trusts that we nominate, really hard job to do this, receive cases, lots of annoyed people, playing mediator role, working out if things are true or not, searching for solutions, can give yellow or red card (like in football), not pleasant role
some people do it, but get tired, as too stressful, then there can be a period without this group as nobody is there, so then left to what karrot offers (where anyone can click sadface, and discuss it), 40$ of people say we should do it this way, 60% say nice people designed it, but too much having 60 people discussing one topic (especially if it’s minor), a lot of exposure - feels like you’re standing infront of lots of people online - in society, you go to a court and have some experts, but not the whole village
some people do think you should not have anything “behind the scenes”
trouble with fake reports and rumours that everyone reads
technical issues
some issues like somebody not picking up, or late
sanctions? yellow card, then if they do it again, it’s a red card, then update the desciption in karrot to say “this person 5 times didn’t appear” for example
discussion is easier for these technical issues
usually the person says sorry
if somebody was selling picked up for, or exchanging it for specific products (e.g. give me some coffee), then it’s like a court process, look for screenshots on facebook groups, etc…
if people are appearing at others pickups without announcing it, or insulting other people, or stalking, quite tricky… some people considering these are private issues, not foodsharing, but unclear where the line is
communication rules - these are tough, as people can disagree/deny/etc. sanctions for communication are hard
do the sanctions restrict pickups? no - how could we.
during holidays a lot of empty slots, and sometimes people send other people who they trust, rule was that if people were excluded they cannot be the external person doing the pickup, how can we check?
technical vs personal
there is a report form people fill out
selling stuff was a big issue, so sort of jumped through the procedures
reporting system on the side
google sheets, messenger conversations, and a form people can submit a report
can write a description in the report form, and which shop, etc…
then subteam contact the person who submitted it, and checking against the rules, etc.
didn’t used to have all the rules, but at a certain number gets more hierarchical
great and idealistic for karrot to be so anti-hierarchical, but if 200 people in group are of the same view, but if a few want to damage the system it’s quite easy, prone to abuse
report form has:
have you tried to talk with them: yes/no
where was it, date, your name, can be anonymous (but hard to evaluate them), what happened
goal is for people to first talk to each other, then ask what was the result of speaking
first member removal process was before the feature existed, and just faked it - “we’re going to kick you out”
how to choose the people in the conflict team
know it’s a hard role but volunteer, try to talk to people, if there are more than needed, then doing a voting
initially used the -2/+2 voting system
most people vote yes/no, not other thing
good for social scientists
had it so you at least need + points, as it’s a trusted group
for creating reports
tried to make initition process hard, all manual process
communication rules, some people accused of being silenced
Questions (note-taking together with the above)
how could we fail? what could go wrong?
not enough people to check and deal (and mediate) with the wrongdoings
people getting power and abusing it
people will not talk to each other to solve their issues
what needs to be true to achieve our goal?
groups should not be too big?
some people need to deal with the cases and make a decision
How might we…?
motivate people to participate in a conflict mediation group
motivate people to find solutions to their own problem
connect the sanctions to the group rules
handle situations when there is nobody that wants to do the mediation
make sure people (someone) will take responsibility for dealing with a case
more discussion
could use the “sadface” still, as a report
e.g. on a karrot chat, asking if they have spoken to the person
if it’s not solved, then who should be informed
key thing to get team of mediation team
need to take into account the scenario where nobody wants to do it
where whole group needs to decide
problem is groups are so big, size of the group is in the way of using the system
don’t know how that can be solved, if there is a way to use a feature without the whole group “ganging up” on a person
feel a bit stuck
wondering if as the karrot team we can support the groups
easier to contact people if you are not in contact with them every day, must be very hard in person
what if we had tools that we as the karrot team can use so we can impose some decisions
sounds lovely idea, but I wouldn’t do it
could be an international team, language is a problem
in germany they have changed how they deal with reports, varying from local vs central team
trying to depersonalise conflicts as much as possible, trying to make a professional approach
being a bit external to the situation
refering to rules makes that easier to apply sanction/send a warning
first step in solikyl contacting a person about a report and remind them of rules, regardless if they did it, fine if they deny it in the first case, just a reminder
psychological thing of being watched
come back to the question of size
in small groups everyone knows everything, but when more people not good to know everything
something tiring in karrot, even if trying to mute all the emails, everyone gets too informed about everything
some people just want to do their community work, not think about everything all the time, too much information, reducing how
idea to use the roles to have this subgroup that can take care of things
who is going to decide the sanction system?
idea that when reporting you can invite a few people you like/trust into the process
Next steps
Bruno will book another session to continue on the process
I am about to start a therapy for Complex Post Trauma Stress Disorder. Please make sure you don’t implement in the code social ostracism, that’s a penalty nobody deserves.
