Proposed paedophilia-exclusionary changes to the Code of Conduct

[Laird]

Context

The proposed changes that you're being invited to vote on are motivated by the MyBB staff response to the admin of a MyBB board for paedophiles seeking support on our forums. Community dissatisfaction with that response came to a head in the thread Need reply to a post in locked thread!

Given the lack of public follow-up on this by staff more than a month later, I am taking the initiative myself.

Proposed changes

Two changes are proposed to the Code of Conduct.

The first inserts a new entry into the list under "Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:". This is that proposed new entry:

• Apologism for unethical behaviour such as unrestrained paedophilia, or distribution in a sexualised context of images of children (these examples compelling exclusion from the community)
  

The second is to append to the first sentence under "Scope" which currently reads:

"This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community."

After the change is appended, it would read:

"This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community, as well as within independently-run boards whose administrators are seeking support from, or (continuing) membership of, the project's community."

Rationale

Combined, had these changes been in effect for the situation that motivate them, the admin of the board for paedophiles on which images of children were distributed in a sexualised context would have been summarily banned from our community.

The first change makes it clear that:

1. Unacceptable behaviour includes not just unethical behaviour, but also apologism for unethical behaviour.
   
2. Unethical behaviour for which apologism for is unacceptable includes unrestrained paedophilia.
   
3. Merely having the proclivities of a paedophile is not in itself unethical behaviour; it is the failure to restrain those proclivities that constitutes unethical behaviour (this is to satisfy staff concerns about human rights).
   
4. Distributing images of children in a sexualised context constitutes such unrestrained paedophilia, noting that:
   
5. The images themselves don't need to be sexual in nature; it is the sexualised context that matters, e.g., their being posted on a board for the gratification of paedophiles.
   
6. Either apologism for unrestrained paedophilia or unrestrained paedophilia itself in the form of distributing such images is unconditionally a bannable offence.
   

The second change makes it clear that this new entry, and the Code of Conduct in general, also applies to the boards of those seeking support from, or (continuing) membership of, the MyBB community.

[Devilshakerz]

The Code of Conduct is meant to cover the Project's own platforms, where it can be realistically and directly enforced. Issues around providing support are placed in the Support Eligibility Policy, which already references the CoC.

Accounts of users violating the SEP are usually limited by support denial (which can include preventing them from opening support threads) without being banned, i.a. to allow contact with staff through Private Inquiries.

The CoC text is mostly outsourced and used by communities in similar position, and kept general enough to cover most problems that may be encountered without enumerating them.

Unless more appropriate options apply, danger to privacy/safety would usually cover problems of mixing ordinary media/information with a particular context (other examples may include deepfake porn or disinformation).

Messages about undesirable conduct are not exempt, but may similarly require interpretation of whether they break the rules (e.g. in the context of disputing a support denial, or changes to the rules themselves).

Note that the MyBB Project may appear more open and transparent compared to others due to its technical nature, and as a result, Team members and Project Friends may discuss plans, rules, and practices publicly, without indicating an official stance or change (which would be reflected on the website, in articles, signed responses, or other resources). Conversely, discussions by default are not capped by reiterating the official stance, locking, or deletion.

[bv64]

Hello Devilshakerz,

Thank you for your answer and thoughts, which I can understand.

If the CoC is the wrong place for the adjustment, I would advocate an adjustment of the Support Eligibility Policy.

There are already some points explicitly listed here that lead to the refusal of support and that's a good thing!

But I think adding ethical problems makes sense here and, as you write, there are other things besides pedophilia. I think it would be a good idea to send a clear message here. The more precise you are here, the easier it is to act in the worst case scenario if someone seeking support with a correspondingly problematic MyBB forum comes to light.

Thank you for the great software, we all just want the best

All the best
bv64 / Lu

P.S. Furthermore, I would be in favor of not only recommending but also requiring the specification of a board URL in support in order to see whether the requesting board complies with the Support Egilibility Policy, including with regard to MyBB copyright.
Some of the free supporters have become a little more suspicious since the case a month ago.

[Omar G.]

I think this could be better if updating the SEP instead of the code of conduct, I think CSAM falls under the "Danger to privacy/safety/security" criteria, but it doesn't reference CSAM anywhere, so maybe a literal update to the SEP would work.

Now, usually within the community only the denial title is shown, so it might be possible that people are denied support without it being clear to the community that the nature of such denial is related to CSAM at all.

Therefore, there might be benefit from adding new criteria, as it could be better for the openness of the community stand, but caution should be taken when issuing such labels on accounts.

I think it is possible to update the CoC to clarify that CSAM is part of the "unacceptable behavior", but I would disagree with your suggested change. Instead, something of the following sort:

- Sharing or distribution of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) and deepfake porn material of any sort

This could help to both communicate the official stand of the community and prevent people from sharing links to such content when posting in the community.

[Omar G.]

P.S. Furthermore, I would be in favor of not only recommending but also requiring the specification of a board URL in support in order to see whether the requesting board complies with the Support Egilibility Policy, including with regard to MyBB copyright.
Some of the free supporters have become a little more suspicious since the case a month ago.

Even if added, we can't force people to share their forum domain, as some might even work off the public net.

Because of this, I think this should be discussed separately.

[Laird]

The two staff responses so far are highly unsatisfactory. We might as well add a MyBB byline: "Active paedophiles welcome! (You might be denied support, but otherwise, hey, come join our community, and feel free to stick around!)"

Is this really the message you want to send?

The point of the proposed changes is to exclude unrestrained paedophiles and apologists for same from our community. Hence, changes to the Support Eligibility Policy are inadequate.

Moreover, it is not just the posting of child sexual abuse material that should trigger exclusion, but the posting of any images of children in a sexualised context.

If the two of you can't find moral clarity on this issue, then get out of the way for those who can.

[bv64]

Laird, my friend, please calm down!

We won't achieve anything with sarcasm and uncompromising attitudes.

I think that the SEP is better than nothing. It's not our board, we're just guests and volunteers here and we can't make demands, we can only put forward suggestions. Suggestions that we've thought about together for a long time and thoroughly.

I had already predicted to you that others don't see things the way we do. A change like this is a process that isn't suggested by a few and simply waved through by the majority and above all by the forum operators.

Unfortunately, the feedback on the survey clearly shows that most people don't care, although I attribute the low voting behavior to the fact that this survey is public and everyone can see how others voted. I actually expected the survey to be anonymous and I think that would have given a little more support.

Don't be mad at me, but I just can't stand behind your last post and keep my mouth shut. You know, that's not my style, I also say clearly when I don't like something.

Please calm down!

[Laird]

It's fine, @bv64, you're entitled to your reaction and opinion. I do stand behind my last post though. The lack of moral clarity needs to be called out.

Re the poll being public, I didn't put a great deal of thought into that, but I don't mind if it's converted into a private one.

[Devilshakerz]

If you believe the CoC has notable deficiencies, a better place for discussion and suggestions may be upstream, where they will have significantly greater impact if accepted: https://github.com/EthicalSource/contributor_covenant

If it looks like extra language is necessary to act upon suspicious content at present time, it can be reported in Private Inquiries or by contacting relevant authorities (if applicable).

Feel free to disagree (and to join by responding to raised problems) with the interpretation of the rules; whether banning should be performative; or links should be required - but there are other participants as well, who already pointed out factors to weigh before reaching consensus for changes, and by definition, people with strong but relatively uncommon positions will likely be left dissatisfied. Common resources are poor targets for conveying them.

Keep in mind that given the technical inclination of the Community, real impact is often held over messaging, many tangents and nitpicking should be expected, and hasty generalizations and insinuation will drive the discussion below the point of interest and relevance for many.

[Laird]

Just to be clear: by referring to my position as "relatively uncommon", you're implying that it is relatively common for members of communities to be comfortable with other members who are known to be distributing images of children for the gratification of paedophiles (and who presumably are paedophiles themselves) to remain in their community.

Could you be any more out of touch with social standards?