How can we be more transparent?

[Sylvah]

@Refresh & @Alpen; Definitely understand the concern & interest in regards to Demotions. As it stands as well, we had just recently (July 4th, yesterday actually!) made a topic in regards to Demotions amongst ourselves in the Administrator Board and how we want to handle them moving forward depending on what occurred with said Administrator. It hasn't been pushed off and is something we want to clarify on to the community as well, and we're glad that both of you brought that up! A more detailed reply will be coming in regards to demotions & how we're going to be handling those moving forward, thanks for your patience!

[Sylvah]

Excuse my double post! Unfortunately we just received insight from a Guardian in our discussion - that disclosing an Administrators demotion goes beyond Wolfhome as it breaks the Chatlands Code of Conduct. It would ultimately be up to the Guardian(s) or Underdog to disclose that information if it was imperative enough to the community. This disclosing of information change would need to go through them specifically, and we do not have the ability to change this ourselves through Wolfhome. We do apologize for this inconvenience, as we thought we had more wiggle room to provide further information than we had initially thought. Courtesy tags for you both who brought this up as well - @Refresh @Alpen

Edit: I was given information to share so we can be as transparent as possible. We were told that this could put Chatlands (not just Wolfhome) in legal jeopardy and there can be ethical ramifications, and for those reasons it is something we will not be able change.

[Cairn]

Spoiler! :

@Cairn; I can assure you bias of any sort is not tolerated by those who are close to each other if that is the case. We have regulations in place for that in our CoC, that I can quote below for your viewing. The CoC is available to all to see, as well! Situations like that could have very well happened prior, and we now have a zero tolerance for anything like that & should not have to be a worry for any member of our community and rightfully so. We can also look into adding additional rules if those in place do not comfort anybody, we're always open to suggestions for these kinds of things. After all, the community is what keeps our platform strong!

Specifically on Bias:

Professional Mannerism

Administrators are encouraged to openly communicate and maintain not only a professional persona to the user base, but to show our "real selves" so to speak as well. We do not want to give off the impression that we are simply robots who only exist to enforce the Rules. However, there is, in fact, a time and place to joke given the situation and location. We strongly encourage our Admins to have fun and joke (including mild/minor swearing) in Public Rooms so long as you both use common sense and respect the Chat Rules. Administrators are held to a higher standard than the general user base, so that should be reflected even when letting loose. When it comes to handling a report, you absolutely MUST remain professional and unbiased regardless of time, place, or user in question.

Cairn, I want to thank you for this post because as it stands we are not happy with what's currently in there for bias as it's very minimal and clearly has not been updated to reflect our current thoughts about bias on the Administration and a topic is currently being made to emphasize on updating a section specifically for bias on the Administration in general as well as for reports like you had mentioned. We appreciate you!

Our current Administration CoC can be viewed in our Wolfhome Administrator Applications here if anyone wishes to go through it!

I'm glad to hear we're more aware that we still bring bias with our professionalism. I know it was a difficulty originally; it's a rough situation when a lot of users and admins are on very friendly terms with an individual of concern. I think my worry on the matter is mostly passed, but I do think that if something like it happens again that maybe it should be taken to an outside higher party perhaps for neutrality sake and stated as much (like when an individual is notified their report is being looked at) in the admin circle as well as to the one bringing the concern to table ? I think that would help a lot; it's nice to be able to reach out to an admin but to have it acknowledged by all admins as a concern is kind of a greater relief since it's acknowledged at all authority levels.

[Sylvah]

Spoiler! :

Spoiler! :

Cairn; I can assure you bias of any sort is not tolerated by those who are close to each other if that is the case. We have regulations in place for that in our CoC, that I can quote below for your viewing. The CoC is available to all to see, as well! Situations like that could have very well happened prior, and we now have a zero tolerance for anything like that & should not have to be a worry for any member of our community and rightfully so. We can also look into adding additional rules if those in place do not comfort anybody, we're always open to suggestions for these kinds of things. After all, the community is what keeps our platform strong!

Specifically on Bias:

Professional Mannerism

Administrators are encouraged to openly communicate and maintain not only a professional persona to the user base, but to show our "real selves" so to speak as well. We do not want to give off the impression that we are simply robots who only exist to enforce the Rules. However, there is, in fact, a time and place to joke given the situation and location. We strongly encourage our Admins to have fun and joke (including mild/minor swearing) in Public Rooms so long as you both use common sense and respect the Chat Rules. Administrators are held to a higher standard than the general user base, so that should be reflected even when letting loose. When it comes to handling a report, you absolutely MUST remain professional and unbiased regardless of time, place, or user in question.

Cairn, I want to thank you for this post because as it stands we are not happy with what's currently in there for bias as it's very minimal and clearly has not been updated to reflect our current thoughts about bias on the Administration and a topic is currently being made to emphasize on updating a section specifically for bias on the Administration in general as well as for reports like you had mentioned. We appreciate you!

Our current Administration CoC can be viewed in our Wolfhome Administrator Applications here if anyone wishes to go through it!

I'm glad to hear we're more aware that we still bring bias with our professionalism. I know it was a difficulty originally; it's a rough situation when a lot of users and admins are on very friendly terms with an individual of concern. I think my worry on the matter is mostly passed, but I do think that if something like it happens again that maybe it should be taken to an outside higher party perhaps for neutrality sake and stated as much (like when an individual is notified their report is being looked at) in the admin circle as well as to the one bringing the concern to table ? I think that would help a lot; it's nice to be able to reach out to an admin but to have it acknowledged by all admins as a concern is kind of a greater relief since it's acknowledged at all authority levels.

Most definitely understand the concern, and your feelings are completely valid about it and I do agree with you as I'd feel the same! We collectively agree that it needs to be emphasized on and explained more in depth so all bases are covered and community members are protected against any sort of bias - especially with reports. I hope I understand what you meant above, but if a report is sent to just one Administrator, that report is brought to everyone on the team and documented. Those who may potentially be bias towards said person in question, they would not take part in handling that case. Those who are able to handle without potential bias would be those discussing it and having it handled depending on the department of course, or if it's a generic chat concern. An Administrator also follows up stating that the report is being brought up, and once it has been handled, the reporter is also notified of this so they are not left in the dark as to if it was handled or not! Thank you again for your replies! If I misunderstood at all also, please feel free to correct me.

[Colo]

GDPR is one thing that is lacking in Chatlands as a whole and one thing that is not caveated in the original post.

Two points jump out to me:

- Logs from other users
- Discussions between administration

Both of the above aren't legally 100% true. I highlighted this as a concern back in 2019 and it wasn't taken seriously. GDPR is at the heart of transparency and data protection for EU citizens + UK dwellers. I'm going to jump on this thread, sorry 8(.

Access to discussions between administration are a legal right of anyone protected by GDPR and it has lead to a global shift. By access to discussions between administrators, I am pointing directly to discussions about specific users. That is considered personal data under GDPR. The same goes for whether or not someone discusses another user in the chat. If someone's name pops up in a chat log, it's personal data.

Companies like Google now let you download huge chunks of your own personal data that they hold, due to GDPR. Even if you are not within a GDPR protected country, end-users benefit from it. Remember about four years ago when suddenly everyone got spammed with privacy update statements? Yeah that's why. If you've noticed the pop-ups asking you what cookies you want a site to save, you have GDPR to thank.

The scope includes everything from chat logs, IP addresses, emails, forum posts and Discord conversations. There's no mention of Discord being used as a third-party software within the privacy policy however it is known that admins make use of specific Discords.

Data can be anonymised where appropriate/possible (omitting who said what but not what they said). A formal process on how that is handled should be in place. A clear way to grab said data should also be in place. The administration should have a GDPR process in and it should be clear to users what it entails. An example would be laying out details on how someone could submit a request via the problem ticket system and how the data request is managed.

More info here: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is ... fines-2018

It is a big read, an important read and one that WH could enact:

1) Update the privacy policy to state that information may be discussed off-site on Discord, via admin boards (including the alpha boards), email and anywhere else that user conduct may be discussed. The places that a user's data may be held must be plain and transparent. Link to the GDPR/Privacy policy of any outside third-party should be provided.

2) Have a process in place for a SAR. Make it transparent for users. A high level view of what is done is all that would be required, e.g.: "The administration will put together the contents of threads pertaining to you however omissions will be made etc etc." A full low level technical analysis of the process isn't needed.

3) Make it clear how SARs are raised on Wolfhome

4) Clarification/updating of the following within the privacy policy: the conversation logs are kept in a directory that cannot be accessed with a browser.

5) Chatland's overarching privacy statement is also incorrect: "We log conversations and significant actions (such as kicks and bans) in our ongoing efforts to provide a harmonious chat environment. These logs are kept private. They are not shared with any other company."

6) Ensure that all administrators are aware of GDPR, the rights it gives to users and how to comply with it.

7) The admin CoC directly contradicts several facets of GDPR and makes no exceptions for it, that should be changed due to the overarching power of Chatlands CoC https://chatlands.com/admin_conduct.php

*gasp* thanks for attending my Ted Talk.

Excuse my double post! Unfortunately we just received insight from a Guardian in our discussion - that disclosing an Administrators demotion goes beyond Wolfhome as it breaks the Chatlands Code of Conduct. It would ultimately be up to the Guardian(s) or Underdog to disclose that information if it was imperative enough to the community. This disclosing of information change would need to go through them specifically, and we do not have the ability to change this ourselves through Wolfhome. We do apologize for this inconvenience, as we thought we had more wiggle room to provide further information than we had initially thought. Courtesy tags for you both who brought this up as well - @Refresh @Alpen

Edit: I was given information to share so we can be as transparent as possible. We were told that this could put Chatlands (not just Wolfhome) in legal jeopardy and there can be ethical ramifications, and for those reasons it is something we will not be able change.

A middle-ground could exist here. During the event of a demotion, information is handed to the Guardians and then published if felt appropriate? Add it as a point of the demotion process so at least it is there for transparency's sake. If it's decided that the information is not in the best interests of users then that's what they decide. In matters such as these the Guardians feel very far removed. As much as they oversee Chatlands, they have an impact on the transparency experienced by a community asking for transparency. That feels wrong and like a step backward for the approach the Wolfhome staff are taking. If anything they should merely be privy to the fact that demotions will be released and informed prior to the release of such information?

There's also the question of how that would impact future promotions. Being transparent about demotions is great but if someone is demoted then ends up on the team again, the communtiy as a whole might not like it/wish that they had more input.

If demotions are made transparent, does that include demotions prior to such transparency agreements? A few demotions spring to mind where the admin "quit" and the demotion was kept private. Often times those admins were felt to be redeemable in their actions. I can think of a couple of examples where someone previously demoted ended up as an admin again.

[Avani]

While we sincerely respect what you've brought up @Colo , there is only so much Wolfhome is able to do when it comes to the legalities. This particular issue will need to be brought to the attention of UD specifically and the Guardians through their Problem Ticket system so it can be properly addressed with those more capable of responding more thoroughly. Anything pertaining to demotions or legalities will need to be discussed through them, this thread is strictly towards Wolfhome in particular in hopes we can address the other issues/concerns at hand by the community.

Here is the link to their Problem Ticket Service: http://chatlandsguardians.chatlands.com ... ticket.php

[Colo]

While we sincerely respect what you've brought up @Colo , there is only so much Wolfhome is able to do when it comes to the legalities. This particular issue will need to be brought to the attention of UD specifically and the Guardians through their Problem Ticket system so it can be properly addressed with those more capable of responding more thoroughly. Anything pertaining to demotions or legalities will need to be discussed through them, this thread is strictly towards Wolfhome in particular in hopes we can address the other issues/concerns at hand by the community.

Here is the link to their Problem Ticket Service: http://chatlandsguardians.chatlands.com ... ticket.php

There is no polite way to word this really. I apologise for how inflammatory this may read.

I posted in this thread in the hopes it would be pushed forward by a voice that would be listened to. If feedback in this thread isn't going to be pushed forward/middle-ground or flexibility achieved, what is the point of it? This thread feels like it's going to be a lot of "But the Guardians" and "the Chatlands CoC". Sure there may be some things that admins can be more transparent on but that's not for you guys to really decide? By that I mean that the Guardians really have the final say so with all the good intentions in the world, the WH admin team can only do so much.

Things like releasing meeting bulletpoints from meetings (mentioned earlier in the thread) also fall under the Chatlands CoC:

Confidentiality - Almost everything that can be found in Administration only areas such as conference rooms, Admin forums, Admin chat groups, or private conversations between Admins, thus assumed to be private. If you are unsure if something is fit for public release, please discuss it with your site owner and in extension the Chatlands Overseers.

The Guardians would have to approve releasing bulletpoints of what admins discussed in a meeting. This is not an attack on the Wolfhome administration or you personally. I'm sure there are processes in place that if a user raises a legal concern, it should go straight into a PT for UD. The problem arises when users feel no confidence in a system. I as a user feel no confidence in the system.

The transparency you are permitted is already laid out in the CoC. The language is broad and far reaching enough that it could cover something that is not truly an infraction. I understand why the Chatlands CoC exists but how far reaching it is and flexibility around it is the concern.

Perhaps the issue here is not Wolfhome's transparency but Chatlands as a whole that is the crux of the issue?

Edited some for clarity, it is late.

[Loki]

@Colo We are forwarding this to them directly, so your voice is heard. Certain things we cannot change and that would be best suited for the Chatland forum, https://forum.chatlands.com/. This is strictly for Wolfhome's transparency issues not Chatlands as a whole.

Certain aspects of Administrator Meetings can be disclosed such as things that are already disclosed on our Masterlist. Rather than what was talked about specifically in the meetings, it would be addressed as things that we plan to work on to better the future of Wolfhome. In regards to logs being posted pertaining to meetings, we are talking about community meetings that we are discussing with the userbase itself. We don't want to not post these logs for public exposure as people can continue to add to what was said if they so choose.

[shifterdarkwolf]

This thread is picking up a bit of steam. I will chime in on a couple topics.

With regards to bias/favoritism, this has been a problem really since the site started. I know, I was an admin in 2000. It was always expressed publicly that it was not tolerated and did not happen, but it was common and no one seemed to care much. I am sure it has gotten better over the years but it most certainly still happens in one form or another, just less blatant than it was in years past. I am glad that it has been codified into the admin CoC, but that isn't really enough. It has to be backed up with a mechanism that removes the opportunity to be biased and this can be easily done by keeping admin friends from investigating or ruling on issues with user friends. While most admins are friendly with everyone (as far as I see), it is not a huge burden to have a neutral party investigate a complaint. For example: Admins A and B are both good friends with User C. A complaint comes in stating that User C harassed User D. Admins A and B are assigned to look into it, but they disclose the conflict of interest. This doesn't mean that they are biased, it means that the appearance of bias is possible and out of an abundance of caution, the complaint should be reassigned. Admin E is asked and while they do not have any relationship to User C, they dislike User D and thus could show bias the other way, good on Admin E for that self awareness. Instead, the case is assigned to Admin F. Yes, that seemed like a lot of steps, but it is not, I just chose a complex situation. I gather that something along these lines already exists among the administration, I think that it may need to be more strictly enforced. If there is even a whiff of impropriety, why subject any ruling to the suspicion of bias? Bias happens, both intentionally and unintentionally. Catching and rooting out the unintentional bias is a LOT harder and it is not something that anyone can just 'act professional' away. That is why it is called unintentional bias.

Moving to what can and can't be shared. I have to fall pretty hard in Refresh's camp here regarding reasons for demotion. If it is a demotion and not a stepping down, it should be public, for several reasons, full stop. If you take on a leadership role and you violate the CoC to the point where you are demoted, accountability demands that reason be released. It builds trust with the general public that the admins are held to at least the same standards that they are, if not higher. Beyond that, there are safety concerns that may arise from such demotions. Someone on the admin walks a little too close for comfort to a line (be it sexual or violence related) to hold a leadership position but not clear cut enough to warrant a ban. So they are tossed back into the user pool and an excuse is made as to why they aren't an admin anymore. The excuse that would be used today would be 'We don't disclose reasons for demotion'. In the past it would simply be 'They decided to step down.'. It might not happen now but it HAS happened in the past. And it is going to be pretty awful when someone gets abused by an ex admin that 'stepped down'.

Regarding Colo's discussion, I have limited knowledge on the topic, especially if it is something that is highly recognized and enforced in the UK/EU. That being said, I'd dot your i's and cross your t's to ensure that WH (and Chatlands for that matter) are in compliance with the GDPR. Honestly, that isn't even something we should be discussing here, it is law. I have full confidence that WH and CL want to be 100% compliant with their legal responsibilities. I'm not accusing them of not being compliant either, but if the issue is being brought up, I think it is nothing if not prudent to double check that compliance.

[calypso]

It would be nice to have some transparency regarding demotions especially when it’s because an admin has broken rules that would get a sub user permanently banned on the spot. But again with the rules idk if that’s possible. It bugs tho because then it just looks like favoritism to that specific person simply because they are an admin.

[Sylvah]

I'd like to apologize for the minor inconvenience, we will be able to address some points in the morning as most of us are either in bed or up late getting ready to sleep - but I'd like to again mention quickly that although we appreciate the insight on certain topics, that this thread in particular isn't where we will be discussing things in depth amongst each other, it is merely a place for suggestions for us to work on strictly for Wolfhome. Anything that pertains to demotions specifically, will ultimately have to go through the Guardian(s) or UD himself and through their PT system as previously mentioned above.

[Refresh]

Ah yes, “legalities”. So Underdog has spoken.
I don’t blame you guys because I’ve had the experience of being held back by this “legalities” excuse. It sucks.
This is Underdog. There was no issue surrounding “legalities” when my demotion was announced on the forum (albeit with 0 information, just that I had been demoted).

Once again we’re stuck in this loop.
- hey, here’s a suggestion!
- we really appreciate it!
- oh… sorry, nevermind. We can’t do this anymore because of [insert reason].

In order to be transparent, the “Guardians” will have to wake up and realize that literally nobody is out here trying to sue Wolfhome. This would’ve been a step in the right direction.

I appreciate how responsive you all are to our thoughts.

[Sylvah]

Although pertaining to demotions is unfortunately out of Wolfhome's hands, we do want to stay responsive & attentive to all thoughts/opinions/idea(s) brought forward to us in this thread. It's imperative that we move in the right direction, as long as we have the ability to on our end. There is plenty other concerns we will address further (my eyeballs need some rest, haha) & how we can improve on those/make the necessary changes! Even though we may not be able to have the ability to change one concern, we can actively work on many others for the community in the meantime. We will always encourage you all to bring them up as you see fit, and thank you again for the understanding - as unfortunate as some conclusions may be.

[shifterdarkwolf]

I'd like to apologize for the minor inconvenience, we will be able to address some points in the morning as most of us are either in bed or up late getting ready to sleep - but I'd like to again mention quickly that although we appreciate the insight on certain topics, that this thread in particular isn't where we will be discussing things in depth amongst each other, it is merely a place for suggestions for us to work on strictly for Wolfhome. Anything that pertains to demotions specifically, will ultimately have to go through the Guardian(s) or UD himself and through their PT system as previously mentioned above.

With all due respect, if this thread is not for discussing transparency issues, where is it being discussed? If the answer is 'On restricted Discords and forums.' that doesn't scream transparent to me. If your end goal is to be more transparent and there is an honest sincerity to work towards that goal, the people you are going to be transparent to need to be at the table. It is kinda the definition of transparent in this context. Otherwise it looks like this:

"We listened to your complaints and heard them. I have good news! We talked it over and investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong. Yay transparency! Oh and no, we won't tell you what we looked at, found or didn't find."

I'm not looking to call out anyone. The job is not easy and is at times thankless. Thank you for your time and effort. But the truth is if the admin wants the users to believe that they are committed to improving transparency, show them. Holding debates about transparency in a private venue is the opposite of transparent.

[Petticoat]

This may or may not be relevant, but I had an idea while I was on my lunch break at work. It may have already been mentioned, so do forgive me if it has.

At work, in healthcare which I understand is vastly different from an online forum, when the staff have a meeting we have something called “Minutes”. It’s a table and or bullet point system of topics that were discussed in that meeting. That is for everyone to see so people know who is doing what and what topics are being addressed and discussed. Maybe Wolfhome could do something similar?

And then for the demotion and quitting of an admin or suchlike; if someone at work has lost their rank (military based) or has to be removed, we are told the reason why. They don’t always go into depth as to why, but it’s mentioned what they’ve broken in terms of their duty or service so we know roughly what has happened. It gives us an insight as to why they were demoted without going into great depths. It doesn’t break conduct or principles either, if we’re just told what guideline or rule they broke without specific details.

Just food for thought for now~