Nest 2019 Code of Conduct

So, whether this document exists or not, the event would reserve the right to evict people from the event, as any event or venue would typically do. So what this document attempts to do, is to provide transparency on that and what type of situations may arise in action to be taken, of some form or another.

Just to be clear, this is the last resort - and we would go to every possible effort to try and resolve a situation with all parties involved without that happening. Unlike many venues or events, which would evict someone on first sign of any trouble without even having a conversation with them first! That is NOT what we want, we want a process where everyone is heard, where people know what to expect, where people are treated with fairness and consistency whatever day of the event it is and whoever is on duty. This document is a way to provide the framework to both participants and those in lead / decision making roles to do this.

But whether we had it or not, the same would still happen. Just with less transparency.

"Show respect and consideration for the diversity of fellow participants by using appropriate language, including asking someone their pronouns rather than assuming."

This line, as expressed, doesn't represent standard practice of human communication whatsoever. As in, it is TOTALLY OUTLIER to always ask someone for their pronouns rather than assuming. Its totally impractical too. I've never had anyone, ever in MY WHOLE LIFE qualify my preferred pronouns.

I haven't seen ANYONE DO THIS on the Nest Facebook group, for example, nor in person at the nest meetup I attended. I have seen people say "its written on Facebook" overlooking that, since whatever time their FB profile has been established, this may have changed.

Not only this, but how far do you take this principle?

Real question: For example, at a seminar with Robert Anton Wilson,. I was ordained as a "Discordian Pope".

Now, I could adopt a preference and embody it deeply that everyone refer to me only using the language / semantic structures that would apply to the Catholic Pope as applied by his educated clergy and staff. I could choose to take offense if no-one realised. But seriously, should I expect people to refer to me like this, or have to check if they should? Do we not trust people to make reasonable assumptions, that can be corrected in the spirit of good will, if they are off?

This part is not inclusive FYI - its grossly exclusive of natural patterns of language built up over time - including those applied with kindness.

Its also ... a bit biased - because - there are 100 other kinds of enquiry that could be made about how people prefer to be referred to or what assumptions people prefer.

It's much better to say - be open minded and if someone shines a light on your assumptions or blindspots, do your best to listen and learn. Please note, some people may prefer different pronouns to those you assume, and in the event you mismatch somehow, do your best to align with their preferences.

That is more practical.

On the other hand, I very rarely have social interactions where new introductions are not accompanied with exchanging pronouns. They do not hinder social interactions, and make many of them much more respectful and inclusive. Language changes. Being able to use our pronouns and have them respected is how it has changed recently.

These are not rules. They are framed as encouraged behaviour. You do not have to do them, but we'd like it if you do (we meaning generic other Nestlings.) To me the CoC is a list of how not to be a dick.

We do not "prefer" out pronouns. We have our pronouns. When talking about assumptions, would you rather assume wrong and get corrected (embarrassing for some) or ask first so never making the mistake. This applies for everything, including putting your foot in it about gender, sexuality, relationship status, whether someone has kids.

This is me trying to shine a light on your blindspot

Case, as an Irish guy who went to school in England, then spent his summer holidays in Ireland with an English accent, and later, who's accent shifted where it is regularly assumed I'm from somewhere different than I am, I've spent my whole life observing people making incorrect assumptions with no ill will intended.

Not only this, but humans, by nature are bad estimators... and literally, have to make assumptions about 100s of factors. Most peoples assumptions about everything are wildly inaccurate - we all live in our own reality bubbles - literally - we all live in completely different universes of experience with some commonality.

Unless someone is trained as a forensic profiler, or has spent a huge amount of time training and calibrating their empathy, where they are highly intuitive to start with, you can basically say that humans make guestimations about each other and reality all the time and often get things wrong.

There is vast literature covering biases and blindspots and just as importantly, how they are all manipulated regularly. I've studied these areas a lot and would rate myself as quite competent. This means, if I pay attention, I can figure things out, which is not to say, I don't get things completely wrong.

So to your question:

"When talking about assumptions, would you rather assume wrong and get corrected (embarrassing for some) or ask first so never making the mistake."

A cursory glance at statistics from reliable-ish sources seems to put trans population (which I assume, but may be wrong about, includes other gender definitions) as between 0.2% to 0.6%. That is one in 200 to one in 500. I'll guess equivalent percentages at nest might be much higher than this.

This means, suggesting "always and never assume" versus "use your best judgement", is a bit far, IMO.

I suggest it is simply more practical, rather than suggesting not always starting with qualifying pronouns is an act of disrespect (I disagree, mistakes in assumption are an act of disrespect), to give guidance for more inclusive language / scripts to better handle such situations.

Can you link me to conversational scripts for handling such situations? Do any such resources exist? I'm open to learning to converse better - but - always starting with gender pronoun qualification seems officous - where I can't lead with a joke or observation.

Also, if some people feel very triggered by inaccurate assumptions, in a way that causes distress / upset / emotional issues, I'm happy to share a few methods of reseting faster and getting to center faster @ Nest. I used to train stand up comedians how to handle heckling - and many other areas of similar ground in terms of response risk - where heckles are often targeted and malicious versus unaware.

IMO, its more practical, rather than suggesting "gender pronoun qualification always", that more people just learn conversation frameworks for more inclusivity and how to handle different situations, plus, those who are triggered by misunderstandings / mis-gendering / wrong assumptions, learn how to feel less triggered, recover faster, and can exist in the World without almost needing everyone else to use the right pronouns or adjectives or descriptors.

Note - this is actually a good discussion of distribution - where in younger populations, those within label of "gender diverse" may be as high as 4%. This is a great example of data informing assumptions - where - I personally didn't imagine stats as high as 1 in 25 people.

http://womanmeanssomething.com/size-of-the-transgender-population-and-why-it-matters/

I suspect you'll find it even higher at Nest. The numbers are generally massively under-representative of trans and intersex people. (interestingly 4% is approximately the proportion of the UK population who is Muslim and 10 times the Jewish population, source Wikipedia. And just over 1% of the UK is vegan, but think of how many vegans there are at burns. People congregate)

I'm not trying to suggest there is ill will in not asking pronouns. Most people in the default world don't - it hasn't made it fully mainstream yet. There is ill will in suggesting it's a stupid thing to do. It's one of the death of a thousand cuts things - each event is minor, but repeatedly they wear you down. Help make Nest a less stressful place, try to remember to ask (it's all any of us can do), and don't make a joke when someone asks.

Language to use: Hi, I'm Case, my pronouns are he/him, nice to meet you. Thomas, this is Alex, they use they/them. Could I check your pronouns please? mine are he/him.
Alternatively don't ask, but when corrected, thank the person, correct yourself and move on. If you catch yourself "she blah, sorry he blah".

Language not to use: "preferred" pronouns. Making a joke if someone asks you your pronouns, for example "what do you think", "what do I look like", "do you really have to ask". Making a huge fuss if someone corrects you, for example "I never normally get it wrong", "I'm trying so hard", "there's just so much to remember".

This particular point is under 'Encouraged Behaviour'. If you do not meet these suggestions (and they are just suggestions) then there will be no action, it is a way to encourage behaviour that members of our community would like to see from each other.

And even if this is something that is not familiar to you, or not something which matters to you - it does not cost you anything to try and to listen to those who it does matter to.

I hope you are able to be, as you said - open minded. And to consider trying some of these encouraged behaviour and by doing this respecting those around you. Even if it is a minority of people it effects, if it costs you nothing then why not give it a go?

A huge part of this - also - is the kinds of behaviour that most humans bring to the mix - is based on the assumptions you make about them and the space you hold for them, whether or not you realise it.

If you try to enforce rules / are behaviourally prescriptive, you are overlooking this power and the culture it creates.

Some people may attempt to follow them, but on the inside, they may be more stressed - i.e. it is stressful to adhere to microgranular rules - or to act unnaturally. This is the opposite it just relaxing, proceeding with kindness and paying attention. I.e. if you want to stress someone out, give them a bunch of prescise things they must do to overload their working memory, and leave them less present or attentive to the moment.

Meanwhile, behaviour is basically wired in to peoples brain's, so its a big stretch to imagine you can regulate it without training people. Those with different pathologies will behave in different ways anyway.

The pre-amble helps a lot - guiding interpretation of what comes after. As it is, this is a kindof officious document.

Is there anything specific in the unacceptable behaviour that you feel you may have trouble to adhere to - or to remember?

I would hope that they are all things which most of us would not do anyway, whether due to legal reasons or IMHO more importantly moral reasons.

And of course we would prefer we didn't have to say these things and we could all exist in peaceful harmony, however from the reality of both the world and specifically Burns that is not the case.

And having dealt with several incidents at burns and the fallout from them, I am acutely aware of how much these things do need to be said, sadly.

Lexy, I get that incidents occur throughout culture, but, "trying to rule them out" doesn't eliminate them. E.g. Making rules to regulate 5% of anti-social rude people - may also change the atmosphere / social dynamics for 95% of people and not neccessarily for the aggregate better.

So its not that I can't adhere to them - simply - that is a different state of mind to the kind of atmosphere cultivated at the burn.

For example, my way of thinking when it comes to language in say a professional workspace would be different to what I might say at Burning Man.

E.g. Commenting on someones appearance or flirting are not appropriate in the vast majority of professional situations.

Apart from that, I think that banning advocating for anything, is just a weird way of thinking, even if I totally disagree with whatever it is. E.g. To understand something, a worthy thought experiment is based on "thesis : anti-thesis"

Most of the people I interacted with at burns absolutely co-existed in peaceful harmony or at least, civility.

I am really glad that your experience has been of one of peaceful harmony for the most part. For some that is not the case.

How do you suggest we are responsible for the welfare of all Nest participants? In alignment with Civic Responsibility:

"Community members who organize events should assume responsibility for public welfare and endeavor to communicate civic responsibilities to participants. "

Do you believe there should be no rules or guidelines beyond the principles? Which is indeed one valid approach.

Taking that one stage further, do you believe that there should be any action taken by burners for other burners at an event - eg eviction? Or should all people be allowed to stay at the event, unless arrested by police? Even if they are causing others harm.

Genuine questions, I am very interested to hear of alternative models of looking after our community, especially with the size it is so these types of issues has very direct impact on whole community.

We had some of these discussions among different regional leads recently, and there are different approaches among different burns in European community. I don't think any approach is right or wrong, just different. And as you said burns are to an extent an experiment. And different people will approach things in different ways.

Hi Lexy. Imagine all agree the sentiments are valid. The question is about delivery. For example, restating UK laws as part of a forbidden behaviour script is odd, officious, confusing, and potentially against the grain of what the burn is about. We go to the burn to escape centralised government/authority. But raise the standard of community spirit.

Leads should be responsible for welfare, balanced by trust in the community to manage itself. Other than restating UK laws, and prescribing behaviour, what does lead responsibility for welfare mean? I don’t think it means creating a safe space. But I do think it means supporting harm prevention and ensuring formal response mechanisms in the event. Essentially reactive with structure. As how harm prevention is managed in other civil society.

Part re-posted from another thread about the 10 principles:

So for me - these principles have always been an attempt to codify / guide awareness of attitudes and ways of thinking and co-existing - a bit like Tantric Sutras are awareness exercises / meditations on nuances on human experience - that allow people to become a bit wiser.

When a critical mass of people embody a majority of these principles, interpreted through the lenses of their own characters and lives, the context created somehow affects everyone in wonderful ways. To me, this seems like a brilliant way of shifting awareness to a different way of thinking and being. IMO, some of the recent attempts to define rules / conduct, jarrs with the expansive, trusting, loving mindset that naturally emerges and is safe to express as a side effect of the Burn.

So these principles can't be intellectualised, only really embodied. If you do that, you can often recognise when someone isn't doing that as much. Keep in mind, this is listed within the philosophical center on the Burning Man website.

Zoomed out though, IMO, its not that all the principles always have to be in balance, so much as, if you can think about them lucidly, a group of people can recognise when someone is diverging from them in a disruptive way.

E.g. The freedom created by Radical Inclusion, Radical Self-Reliance and Radical Self Expression, IMO, stands as an opposite to the prescriptive standards of conduct in the Code of Conduct. I'm not against people behaving with mindful decency - just find it jarring the way this is imposed.

Thanks for sharing your concerns Thomas. My first impressions when glancing over the COC were different, but perhaps I have a different perspective as someone who is a bit more familiar with how things are dealt with at Nest.
First you have a section that is about 'encouraged' behaviour, so that's NOT prescriptive. People can choose to go against what is encouraged, but IMO the COC is letting them know that there are people in this community who will potentially be upset if treated disrespectfully, and lets people know some of the things that could be considered disrespectful by members of the community, in case they didn't know. Since you've never been asked your pronouns before, it's probably not occured to you as an area that could make someone feel bad, but now you do know. What you do with that info is up to you. It's true that it hasn't caught on to a large extent in the greater British culture to ask for pronouns, and if you stick to way you grew up speaking most people will be used to that, but others will be very appreciative of the effort if you do ask. It's up to the individual whether they feel they need to change anything to be more respectful or not. But it's not enforced by Burning Nest. Could it be better written next year? Sure.

The next section IS more prescriptive. It lists some things that are illegal and therefore are, by necessity, things that could have serious consequences. It also lists things that could cause the event to lose its ability to exist or to use this particular location again in the future. So those are a necessity in order for the event to continue - Nest exists within the default world and has to consider its relation to it.

I'm guessing any issues people have are with more 'grey' areas. Those are areas where consequences will depend on the context. Every case will be taken on its own. It's not "If you do A, then we will immediately do B to you". Any decisions to take action will consider what's best for the community and people affected. There could be situations that might fall under those areas that are never reported by anyone involved, or that are reported but are resolved through discussion and mutually agreed upon consequences, if any.

In another thread you mentioned trusting the community, it’s not Lord of the Flies, etc. Well personally I trust that people will not be ejected for frivolous reasons. You won’t be kicked out because you didn’t ask someone their pronouns, or because someone felt you came on a bit strong. Most situations where someone ends up feeling discomfort get dealt with on the spot - they either confront it or leave the situation. In cases where someone feels what has happened is serious enough to need mediation from others, then all factors available will be taken into account. Most of the time nothing more than a warning is needed. But people should know that if they are seriously or repeatedly harming others it won’t be tolerated. Unfortunately people have been drugged, assaulted, or had their safety threatened by others at Burn events. Most people look out for others but it doesn’t take many bad apples to ruin someone’s Burn or even their life. Most events will have a COC they can point to when someone is refusing to accept that their behaviour is a problem but it rarely needs to escalate to that level.

"The freedom created by Radical Inclusion, Radical Self-Reliance and Radical Self Expression, IMO, stands as an opposite to the prescriptive standards of conduct in the Code of Conduct."

Civic Responsibility is also one of the principles:

Civic Responsibility
We value civil society. Community members who organize events should assume responsibility for public welfare and endeavor to communicate civic responsibilities to participants. They must also assume responsibility for conducting events in accordance with local, state and federal laws.

https://burningman.org/culture/philosophical-center/10-principles/

As a final thought, at the time of writing there are 103 active members of this community. Probably, a much smaller number of people will read this thread. There are some 1922 members of the Facebook Group. It is illogical to push discussions here, IMO, unless they are intended to be out of sight, because of a policy to use Loomio. You have to recognise that as is, Loomio is a MINORITY SOCIAL NETWORK in the Burning Nest community, and the reach/visibility of all threads is very limited.

The Loomio page was only set up and promoted recently. It is a drastically better platform for community discussion and decision-making than Facebook. (And apart from anything else, lots of people no longer use Facebook or rarely check it because it is, frankly, shit, in myriad ways. Young people in particular are barely using Facebook any more, so it's not a sustainable platform, either). It will take time for people to migrate to Loomio from Facebook for these kinds of discussions and more promotion and persuasion will be needed. But if people care about contributing to the development of the community and the event, then this is where it is happening.

It's not difficult to sign up for Loomio and participate, at all. It doesn't cost anything and you can use Google or FB to sign in. Frankly, if people can't be bothered putting in that minimal effort to use a better designed platform for community discussion and decision-making, then I would personally question their commitment to the community.

I agree with Graeme. We’ve also expanded our Loomio membership to 500, so let’s get promoting discussion here rather than Facebook for all the reasons that have already been stated

As more people start to use Loomio for proper discussions and actions towards change, that frees up spaces like FB for announcements, fun silly posts, promoting camps, fundraisers, get togethers, etc. There will always be some Nestlings who don't care about governance and may never join, and that's their choice. But it's easy to join and get involved, there is no barrier to entry, in fact less than on FB as you aren't obligated to give so much info about yourself or see irrelevant content. As already mentioned it is very new so still growing in numbers.
Check out the Borderland's version of Loomio called Talk to see just how much stuff can get done on it.

Re Loomio vs Facebook - as discussed already in PM and in the FB thread - ANYONE can read Loomio. The group is open to the public to view. So there are zero limitations or barrier to entry for anyone to read this.

I have also said both on here and on Facebook threads on this topic, that anyone is welcome to provide me feedback via email also, and have provided email address.

We are ramping up using Loomio, there will always be a growth period for a new platform. But we have had high engagement and good feedback so far on it as a platform. And others are welcome to join. So we are not excluding anyone from access to the information or providing feedback.

It would be great to have a working group of volunteers from the community to work on proposal for redrafting of this, and maybe broader new suggestions on how we manage "problem participants" more generally at Nest.

It's not an easy problem to solve for sure!

I have been doing some reading on Burning Man and topics of Consent & Sexual Assault.

And would like to just leave this article from Burning Man official blog on topic of consent & sexual harassment for others to read if interested:
https://journal.burningman.org/2015/08/philosophical-center/tenprinciples/consent-and-sexual-harassment-at-burning-man-what-you-can-do-to-help/

Why so indirect ?

It seems that the authors of these guides and codes write them in a way that they hope will produce the effect they want. They're guessing the psychology of the people they're addressing and either over or under-stressing the terms in order to get a particular desired behaviour.

This is fine on a one-off basis, where the argument can be tailored to an individual. It's not so fine when everybody is different.

Along with that, a list of proscribed behaviours doesn't work well either. It leads to marginal arguments and questions about intent. It soon goes wrong when it becomes necessary to add more items as people try them on - though I think Nest is pretty good at avoiding this.

I'd like to see a more positive approach.

Describe the atmosphere and society we want (which is already very close to the code of conduct - it just needs to concentrate on 'do this' rather than 'don't do that') and follow it with a more general statement that we look to everybody to support this, and that those that are seen to be disrespecting the community spirit will be addressed individually and called out on it - with the ultimate possibility of removal. This is how society works in general, with peer pressure to effect change before the law is invoked. It's just changing the balance a little in favour of being called out, to address our British reluctance to criticise directly, and our liberal expectation that we can assert our individuality without limit.

I think this is right. Allow the community to manage itself largely. Leads should support welfare, not prescribe it to ensure it.