CoC: assume good faith versus don't assume bad faith
Aaron Wolf
Public
Seen by 261
I proposed the "Assume Good Faith" guideline as I think the principle of charitable interpretation is extremely important, especially online. However, I've recently lost some comfort with the term.
As a proactive assertion, "assume good faith" can even read as an obligation even in light of evidence to the contrary. Ideally, what we want is no assumptions at all, particularly not assumptions of bad faith.
I still like positive assertions that messages be interpreted with charity. People should keep in mind the potential for a communication to have been in good faith. Keeping an open mind that way and replying with grace is the point. The point isn't actually to assume good faith.
So, what about alternatives like "don't assume bad faith"?
That no long works in the positive DOs list, but it says not to assume rather than to assume.
Positive framing includes things like "interpret with charity" or some things in those directions. That at least leaves it more open to each person to not feel obligated to make certain assumptions…
Or maybe "Assume Good Faith" is good enough (and my initial liking is because it's already a widespread concept)…?
*
Gil Scott Fitzgerald Thu 2 Aug 2018 3:26AM
Maybe "acknowledge the possibility of good faith"?
emi do Thu 2 Aug 2018 12:47PM
I personally don't have any negative connotations with assume good faith.
In thinking about how we want this CoC to be used, I feel like it's to set the tone for how we want members to interact with one another. I think in this light, it is important that we include something in the CoC which indicates that IF you should feel uncomfortable, that there are measures you can take to get support and address the issue (ie NOT feel obligated to assume good faith if there is evidence to the contrary).
Jake and Manu's versions had this at the end:
If I am offended or uncomfortable with content I know that I can:
a) [engage] with a user directly to communicate and resolve our differences
b) [block] or [mute] a user
c) [report the incident to social.coop]
- i) using Mastodon's [Report feature]
- ii) using [this form]
Matt Noyes Thu 2 Aug 2018 3:46PM
That content seems important to include, Emi. Thanks for catching that. Can you paste it into the latest version? Or post it in a comment?
Neville Park Thu 2 Aug 2018 5:57PM
I'm rather leery of the potential for abuse of "assume good faith"/"don't assume bad faith", but realize I am probably very much in the minority.
Would a good modifier be "assume good faith when actively engaging with people"? That is, you aren't obliged to reply to people and you can block/mute at will, but if you actually engage in a conversation with them you should give them the benefit of the doubt.
Aaron Wolf Thu 2 Aug 2018 6:45PM
I think the how-to-resolve stuff should be in a separate doc from the CoC itself, it's part of the handling/reporting and we should have the entire level of dealing with problems in one place, not separate self-help from reporting.
So, I think we should have a self-help (that's the co-op values term) section of the reporting doc prior to the sections about full reports.
Aaron Wolf Thu 2 Aug 2018 6:50PM
I think "assume good faith" works if we annotate it (I mentioned separately that we should have a separate annotated edition of the CoC).
I still like everything about what Assume Good Faith is intended to do. And it applies even when not engaging with people. So, we should see good faith when reading even if we don't reply or in other cases…
I think I really just want a word to replace "assume" that means "remember the potential for". This may just be too pick. Maybe just having an explanation of "assume good faith" is all we need.
emi do Thu 2 Aug 2018 10:06PM
@mattnoyes I posted it in a comment on the etherpad... maybe I did it on the wrong version? https://pad.disroot.org/p/Social.Coop_Code_of_Conduct_V2.2FH#
Simon Grant Thu 2 Aug 2018 3:49PM
I'm thinking that introducing a very little context might help resolve this. What about "when assessing someone's character or motives, work from evidence, including what they say when asked, rather than assumptions"
Aaron Wolf Thu 2 Aug 2018 6:53PM
I like the direction. But the goal is that we are constantly assessing motives and character whether we realize it or not. So there's no time where this is on or off. We should always be keeping in mind the potential for misunderstanding and that someone else may be acting in good faith.
So, an explanation like: "When in doubt about someone's good faith, ask for clarification or otherwise respond with benefit-of-the-doubt. Do not assume bad faith."
I particularly like the term "benefit of the doubt" as that's key here, I think.
Fabián Heredia Montiel · Thu 2 Aug 2018 12:59AM
I am good either way, however since it is in encouraged behaviour (rather than unacceptable behaviour)
I am inclined to keep a "yes do this" rather than a "don't do this" phrasing. If there is a simple-majority for the "don't assume bad faith" phrasing I am good with the change.