It’s become apparent after multiple attempts in the last few years that there are major perception and procedural flaws with how staff handles the process of Censures. This thread is designed to begin discussion on how to fix these flaws, and how we can correct perceptions of the censure process.
There are 3 general problems with censures as presented by the Charter. These problems I will discuss below.
Problem #1: Procedure
Censure proceedings are rarely initiated, and the policy as laid out in the charter is vague. Members of disc, up until this point, have been operating on precedent, looking to prior Censure proceedings as the methodology to present a case. This causes confusion because censure is a two-step process as we have been conducting it but not in how the charter lays it out. The charter makes no good presentation or argument for how censures should be proceeded. Only general guidelines for what should be done. For this reason I think we need to radically rethink the procedural component.
It’s at this point that I should point out that the process we call ‘Censure’ is a process of demotion in the charter. Censure as a separate process does not exist, as it is built into the procedural explanation for demoting staff members who have abused their position and power. In broad strokes the charter lays out what a concerned staffer should do, who they should talk to. It gives general guidelines for investigating. But the posting process is vague, a single line devoted to how demotions/censure posting should be handled. I think this is a major root of why everytime we go through this song and dance there is immediate confusion about what is happening.
So lets talk about the current process we are doing:
Disc is currently gathering evidence, posting a thread with some sort of context and explanation of the situation, and then giving a general recommendation about the action that should be taken. This thread is a discussion. This is part 1.
Part 2 has been varied, the charter says that Disc is supposed survey the consensus of discussion, and then decide based on that perceived consensus. This has caused issues, as Aismallard discussed in the post-mortem of the November 2020 thread, where the vagueness of suggested outcomes made determination of Disc’s action difficult, or worse, an unfair or unsupported outcome is issued.
How do we fix this?
To fix procedural issues we need to firmly lay out the process by which censures/demotions should occur when the threshold is met by a staff member’s behavior. This involves defining the steps of Censure process. It is important to keep in mind the procedural issues are entirely within the Censure discussion and decision-making processes.
I believe that when a censure procedure is being considered and an investigation is beginning the following should be observed:
- Communication with the party being investigated. This really should only be done in offenses where cooperation and understanding of the circumstances that led to the behavior will be beneficial. Abusive staff members who may lash out when confronted with the possibility of censure are unlikely to cooperate and may attempt to tilt perception against Disc for their own gain.
- Staffers or community members who are bringing the behaviors to the attention of disc should be anonymized unless otherwise requested. If they abuse this anonymity or make reports in bad faith, then Disc should act accordingly.
I believe any good censure/demotion process should be clearly segmented in the discussion section as follows:
- Presentation of evidence and context. This should be devoid of judgement or interpretation, simply presenting the facts of the case as is.
- How disc became aware of the case.
- Explanation of any mitigating context/circumstances that staff should take into consideration.
- Explanation of why/how the behaviors are problematic for a staffer to be engaging in, yes even the on the nose behaviors that warrant removal.
- Disciplinary’s initial judgement of possible actions providing a baseline for staff to build off of.
- The thread should last no less than a week. 72 hours was reasonable when the charter was written, it is no longer reasonable for a staff body of our size.
To Fix the decision making I think we need to move away from “Disc should make an interpretation based off the discussion” it’s flawed. Instead Disc should take the suggestions, and implement a vote/ranked choice vote for the outcome. This removes the ambiguity of people voicing support for one outcome, while not being opposed to another. But I’d like to hear other thoughts.
Problem #2: Perception
A large issue that has become apparent with demotion/censures is sharp reactions to the process occurring at all. There is a strong negative perception attached to the word Censure due to a variety of factors including the perception of the demotion/censure process being a political tool to remove staffers who aren’t liked. There’s a strong association with Censure/Demotion being a process that will automatically result in the removal/punishment of a given staffer. It serves as a sort of black mark against that staffer, often imparting feelings of betrayal or resentment. This has, in turn, lead to historic hesitancy to initiate censures for staffers who very clearly have crossed the line of acceptable behavior. And leads to staffers who are, otherwise, in relatively good standing with the site resigning or disappearing to avoid accountability when the threat of censure looms. The other consequence is that censures for longer term behavior or staffers who are well liked but who have crossed lines they shouldn’t be are met with hostility as the perception is that, just by initiating the process or posting the censure thread, the black mark has already been imparted. In cases where the procedural issues outlined in Problem #1 occur, we’ve seen casting of aspersions against disc team members and the process, leading to a compound effect that degrades the perception of Disc’s effectiveness as a team. This isn’t to say that some of these perception issues aren't justified, at least one major abuse of the censure/demotion process has occurred during the site’s history.
How do we fix this?
I think fixing many of the procedural issues will alleviate the perception issues that come with the demotion/censure process. However beyond that I’m not sure how to fix that.
Problem #3: Censures have no teeth… except when they do.
As a component of the Demotion process, censure is considered the lesser outcome of said process being initiated. Holding a staff member’s position and powers in abeyance for a given behavior is a punishment that could be considered… weak. Except when it isn’t. Problem #2 imparts a black mark on anyone who is censured, staff perception of that person can seriously change as a result. It’s a compound issue where there is a social component of punishment attached to the procedural punitive action, resulting in public embarrassment, being socially ostracized, and removed from teams that were unaffected by the behavior on display for being censured. It essentially being a ‘Vacation from staff’ only holds true if the individual targeted by censure isn't affected by that process and the resulting perceptions and ostracization that may occur. Essentially: whether censure is effective or not is psychological. That’s a problem when someone realizes they can do something, get away with a short censure of a month, and then carry on at a lower-level of behavior. If the individual doesn’t care about their perception within staff and/or social consequences as a result, then as Rounder put it in a recent thread, it’s a slap on the wrist.
How do we fix it?
I’m not sure on this one. Open to thoughts