I’ve been observing that conversations on the Proof of Humanity telegram channels are sometimes taken over by groups using toxic memes and super heavy language like “poorfag” and “retard”.
Not only this makes many, me included, feel alienated form these spaces, but it is detrimental to our ability to have productive debates and collaborate as a community.
Proof of Humanity is committed to the principle of openness, and facilitating a free exchange of ideas in an environment of thoughtful discourse.
Proof of Humanity is committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion, or similar personal characteristic.
The following behaviors will lead you to being banned from the channel:
Threats of violence or violent language.
Sexually explicit material or language.
Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist or otherwise discriminatory jokes and language.
Personal insults.
Spamming, trolling, baiting or other attention-stealing behavior is not welcome.
Impersonating another person by copying their avatar, posting content under their email address, intentionally using a deceptively similar username or otherwise posing as someone else.
Doxxing and invasion of privacy: posting other people’s personal information, such as phone numbers, private email addresses, physical addresses, credit card numbers, Social Security/National Identity numbers, or passwords. Depending on the context, such as in the case of intimidation or harassment, other information, such as photos or videos that were taken or distributed without the subject’s consent, may be considered to be an invasion of privacy, especially when such material presents a safety risk to the subject.
Channel admins will be responsible for enforcing this Code of Conduct, according to these rules:
If they consider a transgression to be less severe they may choose to give an initial warning instead of a ban.
If a user has already received a 24 hour ban and disrespects the Code of Conduct once again, they shall be permanently banned.
Very well simplified code of conduct, Paula.
I would add Impersonation, Doxxing and Invasion of privacy as behaviors leading to be banned. Like GitHub’s code of conduct point and defined as:
Impersonation. You may not impersonate another person by copying their avatar, posting content under their email address, intentionally using a deceptively similar username or otherwise posing as someone else. Impersonation is a form of harassment.
Doxxing and invasion of privacy. Don’t post other people’s personal information, such as phone numbers, private email addresses, physical addresses, credit card numbers, Social Security/National Identity numbers, or passwords. Depending on the context, such as in the case of intimidation or harassment, we may consider other information, such as photos or videos that were taken or distributed without the subject’s consent, to be an invasion of privacy, especially when such material presents a safety risk to the subject.
I also agree, proposal of the Code of Conduct should be included within the HIP-16.
Wonderful, I’ve added the edits that were suggested in this thread. Keeping proposals separate for (i) clarity and (ii) allowing those who may disagree with one of the proposals to express that on the poll. Will keep looking for additional suggestions to our CoC =D
In the spirit of increasing the productivity of the discussion…
I disagree fundamentally with this proposal starting from point number 1:
Proof of Humanity is committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion, or similar personal characteristic.
This is not the case. It may be a goal for a chatroom group, but it is not the goal of the PoH project. Proof of Humanity is a technical project for the technologically literate and able, people competent to secure their own keys. Confusion on this point has caused suffering and financial loss.
I could easily see an argument being made that this post is ableist or offends the sensibilities of those defending the illiterate. I fear that any ‘code of conduct’ adopted anywhere in the project may come to limit our capacity to move forward as a community. I’m not an anarchist, I just want us to be careful.
The guidelines for this forum, FAQ - Proof of Humanity and UBI , seem reasonable, so I propose that we adopt those as the guidelines for all moderators of official channels as well. When the Telegram channel is blessed as an official channel, those guidelines can be applied by the moderators.
I disagree or don’t understand what meaning you give to certain words, humanity = all humans on the planet earth as we know, UBI, Universal (all, as Paula said) basic, income, so you are maybe confusing a personal agenda with the spirit of the foundations of the project.
I really disagree with your points here. If my understanding is correct you are suggesting that PoH must be used only by technical capable people whitch goes completelly against the spirit of this project.
Agree that we have some issues in regards to securing the keys but instead of blocking the posibility of new humans to join we must improve whatever process is in place and find new ways to help whoever needs support or is not technicall able.
Maybe you can elaborate a bit more about what do you think this project is about, what should be the mision and the vision so I can further understand what is your view.
Thanks
I believe that the project was born to help the technologically illiterate as well as older people.
ginada in a street situation, there is how exciting it was for me, but given that security is extremely necessary in cyberspace and this is a new experimental system for humans that seeks a unique identity which leads us to a dilemma from which I understand your mistake arose, the idea I think I have understood is to bring in a practical and accessible way both a computer genius and an illiterate person a secure and unique identity, that is precisely our task which is very complicated but not impossible, if I think there is *** Need for a middle layer between storage and consumers. ex: process the stored data before providing it to the consumer instead of simply giving them access to the real ipfs path **, which would be fantastic since at that point we can articulate it with simple and understandable apps for anyone, something like an app that You need to open it once a week with facial biometric data for example, that complicates the puppeteer a lot since he should have the puppet and that is very difficult to organize.
Another point that must be followed closely is the issue of delegation which types, since if the totals were possible in all cases, that would be another weak point that the puppeteers could take advantage of
*** information about juanu ***
Creo que el proyecto nació para ayudar tanto a los analfabetos tecnológicos como a las personas mayores.
ginada en una situación de calle, es lo emocionante que fue para mí, pero dado que la seguridad es sumamente necesaria en el ciberespacio y este es un nuevo sistema experimental para humanos que busca una identidad única que nos lleva a un dilema del cual entiendo tu error. Surgió, la idea que creo haber entendido es traer de manera práctica y accesible tanto a un genio informático como a una persona analfabeta una identidad segura y única, esa es precisamente nuestra tarea la cual es muy complicada pero no imposible, si creo que hay *** Necesidad de una capa intermedia entre el almacenamiento y los consumidores. ej .: procesar los datos almacenados antes de proporcionarlos al consumidor en lugar de simplemente darles acceso a la ruta ipfs real **, lo cual sería fantástico ya que en ese punto podemos articularlo con aplicaciones simples y comprensibles para cualquier persona, algo así como una aplicación que hay que abrirlo una vez a la semana con datos biométricos faciales por ejemplo, eso complica mucho al titiritero ya que debería tener el títere y eso es muy difícil de organizar.
Otro punto que hay que seguir de cerca es el tema de la delegación qué tipos, ya que si los totales fueran posibles en todos los casos, ese sería otro punto débil que los titiriteros podrían aprovechar.
Having equality as a principle is noble.
Right now, saying that everyone is equal in the eyes of PoH is just not true, as there are real barriers.
Having moderation guidelines be out of sync with reality is not desireable. I fear it is dangerous.
Our community doesn’t have a central declaration of principles, and this isn’t the place to get foundational.
I move that we adopt the existing rules as applying to everywhere, so everything is uniform and easy to understand. These rules which are already in force here: FAQ - Proof of Humanity and UBI
Does anyone have a problem with us using the existing rules?
I had a long conversation with @0x00555dc77a343e205cb1c7755407c93470db3f91_Ethereum and he brought up some important concerns about how the present Code of Conduct could lead to a dictatorship of the politically correct, where critical issues would not have a safe space for discussion because they concern a specific group of individuals that would not be able to be named. Although I disagree (I think it is possible to discuss any topic in a manner that does not disrespect others), I concede that it would be helpful to have one more addition to our Code of Conduct (borrowed from RadicalxChange):
“Proof of Humanity is committed to the principle of openness, and facilitating a free exchange of ideas in an environment of thoughtful discourse.”
Finally, I think that his alternative proposal would fall short of addressing the crisis that inspired the creation of this Code of Conduct, which concerns the abundant use of pejorative language and personal insults on Proof of Humanity’s telegram channels.
Thus, I am happy to announce I’m moving this proposal to Signaling Phase!
WE ARE ON PHASE 3!
!! It also adapted sections from the Citizen Code of Conduct and the RadicalxChange Community Code of Conduct.
