Escalation ladder and exclusion criteria (to be decided by the group)

The community will maintain a clear, publicly available escalation ladder: repeated or serious reports trigger a course-correction process; where correction fails, mindful exclusion follows — with temporary, conditional, and permanent forms available for serious harm, intimidation, retaliation, boundary refusal, or immediate safety concerns. Zero tolerance for violence will be stated plainly but phrased so as not to frighten members, in the manner of a Civic Responsibility principle read with SA law. Inclusion and exclusion decisions are made against the published policies — a code of conduct / good-standing policy — not ad hoc.

Deliberately left open

GTC-030 — which actions are zero-tolerance is an open group decision. OPIN-050 — whether the operative distinction is "exclusion" vs "not in good standing" is open. OPIN-002 — how to deal with the small fraction causing harm is the framing question this ladder must answer. Decision authority: OD-011/OD-015.

Which actions are zero-tolerance

GTC-030 leaves open exactly which actions trigger zero tolerance. The draft commits to stating zero tolerance for violence plainly but non-frighteningly, without yet listing the acts.

If left open A zero-tolerance list is the sharpest edge of the escalation ladder. Left undefined, members cannot know where the hard line is; defined carelessly, it can frighten the very community the draft wants to reassure.

Options for resolution

Agree a short, explicit zero-tolerance list (e.g. violence, sexual assault)
State the principle now and defer the enumerated list to the committee
Phrase it as a Civic Responsibility principle read alongside SA law

'Exclusion' vs 'not in good standing' as the operative distinction

OPIN-050 asks whether the meaningful lever is full exclusion or a lighter 'not in good standing' status against a code of conduct / good-standing policy.

If left open The chosen vocabulary shapes how proportionate and reversible consequences feel. Collapsing everything into 'exclusion' loses the graduated middle ground the ladder is meant to provide.

Options for resolution

Adopt a graduated good-standing status distinct from exclusion
Treat exclusion as the only formal state and handle the rest as coaching
Model both on Sideburn's good-standing policy in the reference library (SYN-047)

How to handle the small fraction who cause harm

OPIN-002 is the framing question the whole ladder must answer: how the community deals with the small minority who repeatedly cause harm without slipping into predator-hunting.

If left open Get this wrong in either direction and the ladder fails — too soft and the space stays unsafe; too hard and it becomes the call-out culture SYN-032 forbids.

Options for resolution

Design the ladder explicitly around this minority while defaulting to support
Pair firm exclusion criteria with the coaching path (SYN-033) for those open to change
Validate the approach against Stage 2 evidence before finalising

Where this comes from · 12 source items

This draft merges what the community actually said across 12 source items — every source ID is permanent and traceable.

GTC-024 code of conduct/good standing
GTC-025 Policy for “is the way you’re engaging respectful? Causing discomfort? If multiple instances reported y multiple people, is there a process we can implement to correct/course correct? If not way to course correct. Then mindful exclusion. May seem punitive, but only from default world lens. There’s a higher standard of care here, which explains the need for policies
GTC-029 Set criteria for exclusion and handling repeated conversations with no change (e.g., Framing in communities, exclusion can happen for capacity reasons- what can community withstand prior to exclusion or it will destabilize. Exclusion is “this is costing the system too much energy and not sustainable” Should be clear and available so not a surprise to anyone in support/disciplinary conversations
GTC-030 What are zero tolerance actions?
GTC-061 Situations for temporary, conditional, and permanent exclusion: serious harm, intimidation, retaliation, refusal to respect clear boundaries, or an immediate safety concern
OPIN-002 How do we deal with the 1% of participants who make it unsafe/uncomfortable
OPIN-011 Zero tolerance for violence: In terms of saying that in the community guidelines without terrifying people, we could refer to something similar to AfrikaBurn’s Civic Responsibility guiding principle.
OPIN-012 A reminder that we exist within the laws of the country, which includes the laws on gender-based violence
OPIN-046 Based on policies, we decide to include or exclude
OPIN-050 ( exclusion vs. not in good standing? )
OPIN-053 Policy for “is the way you’re engaging respectful? Causing discomfort? If multiple instances reported y multiple people, is there a process we can implement to correct/course correct? If not way to course correct. Then mindful exclusion.
OPIN-144 we need to define clear exit criteria so that there's no struggle when needing to know when someone needs to be removed from the communal spaces.

Themes · repercussions and exclusion · investigation and fairness · governance and legitimacy · legal interface

Your signal on this draft

Sentiment only — no action is taken from these tallies. You can change it any time.

Comments · members only

Comments and tallies are visible to registered members. Log in.