Upcoming Tinnitus Talk Code of Conduct

[Tinnitus Talk]

Tinnitus Talk Code of Conduct

The team at Tinnitus Talk are launching a new Code of Conduct for our forum. We're changing the way we moderate because we want to offer better quality information and not endanger our work with research, professionals and the community.

We currently have our Netiquette but we want to create something simple and easy to understand that protects the people who take part and makes the site a better place overall.

Running a forum isn't easy. It's a delicate balance between allowing free speech and keeping the forum a safe place with high quality content.

We are particularly concerned with involving as many people as we can in critiques and knowledge sharing. We want to encourage the broadest range of people possible to be involved and we want to make sure that our Code of Conduct gives everybody confidence in taking part.

Check out the things we have put together below. If you have something to share or any ideas on what can make the forum a better place for discussion, please let us know in this thread.

If you don't want to share publicly then PM Markku, Steve or Hazel.


Code of Conduct

A. How to Treat Others​

1. Do not insult or belittle your fellow members.
2. Do not assume everyone has the same tinnitus as you, experiences differ.
3. Harassment or discrimination is not tolerated.​

B. Expressing Your Opinions​

4. Do not present your personal opinion as fact.
5. Critique is welcomed, however unsubstantiated claims or personal attacks are not acceptable.
6. Repetition of the same content across multiple threads may be deleted.
7. Information published on this site is not intended as a substitute for professional medical advice.​

C. Promoting High Quality Content​

8. Stick to the thread topic, off topic posts may be deleted without notice.
9. Advertising, self-promotion, or solicitation are prohibited.
10. Do not make scientific or factual claims without supporting evidence.
11. Duplicate accounts are not allowed, they will be deleted.
12. Do not discuss moderator actions publicly.​

D. Privacy​

13. Conversations (private messages) are private in nature - not to be shared in public.
14. Conversations reported to staff are treated confidentially.
15. It is forbidden to reveal personal information without consent.​

 

[Jack Straw]

I am very happy to see this.

I really agree with A:2, B:4, C:10 and especially B:7!

I hope these will be enforced going forward.

 

[GregCA]

Good work!

A couple of thoughts:

If it's a code of conduct, I'd stick to "Dos and Don'ts": you are telling members how to behave. A1 and A2 are using the imperative mood form, but A3 isn't. I suggest rephrasing all "commandments" in imperative mood form. A3 would become "Do not harass or discriminate".

B7 is not a commandment either (along the lines of the paragraph above): "Do not provide medical advice." You can chose to add an exception to this for real doctors, if it makes sense to let it happen from a legal standpoint (jurisdictions vary - it can be very hairy): "Exception: if you are a doctor, you may <insert what is allowed>, as long as you clearly indicate in the first sentence that you are a doctor." - If it were up to me, I'd not allow medical advice on the board at all, and direct members to seek medical assistance from real professionals instead. There's a lot of armchair doctors or people who introduce themselves as experienced counselors roaming the forum and dispensing dangerous advice. "You can say <I did this, and this is what happened> but you cannot say <do that>".

Perhaps a permanent, immutable post header/footer disclosing that none of the content is medical advice could help.

C10 is laudable, but I'm unsure how it can be policed in practice: everyone thinks their opinions are well rooted in reality, even the flat earthers among the users. If this rule were enforced diligently, the amount of posts would go down drastically (but the signal-to-noise ratio would improve).

Finally, from a practical standpoint, would moderators be expected to factually verify every claim in every post?

 

[Jack Straw]

Good work!

A couple of thoughts:

If it's a code of conduct, I'd stick to "Dos and Don'ts": you are telling members how to behave. A1 and A2 are using the imperative mood form, but A3 isn't. I suggest rephrasing all "commandments" in imperative mood form. A3 would become "Do not harass or discriminate".

B7 is not a commandment either (along the lines of the paragraph above): "Do not provide medical advice." You can chose to add an exception to this for real doctors, if it makes sense to let it happen from a legal standpoint (jurisdictions vary - it can be very hairy): "Exception: if you are a doctor, you may <insert what is allowed>, as long as you clearly indicate in the first sentence that you are a doctor." - If it were up to me, I'd not allow medical advice on the board at all, and direct members to seek medical assistance from real professionals instead. There's a lot of armchair doctors or people who introduce themselves as experienced counselors roaming the forum and dispensing dangerous advice. "You can say <I did this, and this is what happened> but you cannot say <do that>".

Perhaps a permanent, immutable post header/footer disclosing that none of the content is medical advice could help.

C10 is laudable, but I'm unsure how it can be policed in practice: everyone thinks their opinions are well rooted in reality, even the flat earthers among the users. If this rule were enforced diligently, the amount of posts would go down drastically (but the signal-to-noise ratio would improve).

Finally, from a practical standpoint, would moderators be expected to factually verify every claim in every post?

I think from the scientific standpoint they don't want people saying things unless they can back it up with reputable sources.

I don't think the mods can check each and every fact, but it will cut down on misinformation if people would have to post at least one study / scientific article to verify their claims.

 

[glynis]

I think it would be good to point out that you can block/ignore a member yourself if you have an issue with someone.

 

[Contrast]

Whenever I make a post regarding inner ear biology or tinnitus I usually leave a scientific paper as reference.

I honestly hope I'm not spreading harmful misinformation...

I know there was some early on post where I treated hypotheses as facts.

 

[85dB T]

Where is the Mission Statement posted?

Code of Conduct should be conducive to the mission.

 

[annV]

I honestly hope I'm not spreading harmful misinformation...

I always find your posts very informative.

 

[Hazel]

If it's a code of conduct, I'd stick to "Dos and Don'ts": you are telling members how to behave. A1 and A2 are using the imperative mood form, but A3 isn't. I suggest rephrasing all "commandments" in imperative mood form. A3 would become "Do not harass or discriminate".

Very good point. We'll rephrase as suggested.

B7 is not a commandment either (along the lines of the paragraph above): "Do not provide medical advice." You can chose to add an exception to this for real doctors, if it makes sense to let it happen from a legal standpoint (jurisdictions vary - it can be very hairy): "Exception: if you are a doctor, you may <insert what is allowed>, as long as you clearly indicate in the first sentence that you are a doctor." - If it were up to me, I'd not allow medical advice on the board at all, and direct members to seek medical assistance from real professionals instead. There's a lot of armchair doctors or people who introduce themselves as experienced counselors roaming the forum and dispensing dangerous advice. "You can say <I did this, and this is what happened> but you cannot say <do that>"

Food for thought. I'm also inclined towards not allowing any medical advice, but we'll discuss further internally.

C10 is laudable, but I'm unsure how it can be policed in practice: everyone thinks their opinions are well rooted in reality, even the flat earthers among the users. If this rule were enforced diligently, the amount of posts would go down drastically (but the signal-to-noise ratio would improve).

Complete enforcement of every clause may not be possible in practice, but we still believe it's important to send a clear message on the need for supporting one's claims with hard evidence. If and where possible, we will moderate accordingly.

Finally, from a practical standpoint, would moderators be expected to factually verify every claim in every post?

We don't have the resources for this, unfortunately. We will rely on smart moderation tools, as well as our own instincts and experience. Furthermore, we hope/expect that forum members will alert us to suspicious content, as is currently already happening to some extent. We will dig deeper only in cases that smell fishy.

Thanks for your extensive feedback @GregCA !

 

[Steve]

It isn't meant to be overly punitive, more that there are things we need to tighten up on and places where we need to be better. Most of the things that will be moderated following the new CoC will be done in as friendly way as possible.

We will be quite reliant on people reporting, more so than from us going through posts. A lot of things are those that people dislike so we hope that the final version is something that will benefit (virtually) everyone.

Having high quality content feels so much more important the longer we do this. Especially given that a lot of people who come on here are searching for help and often in a vulnerable state. I feel that we owe it to the community as a whole to amends the rules for the site.

 

[Hazel]

Whenever I make a post regarding inner ear biology or tinnitus I usually leave a scientific paper as reference.

I honestly hope I'm not spreading harmful misinformation...

I know there was some early on post where I treated hypotheses as facts.

We know your research related posts as thorough and diligent @Contrast. Besides, intent also matters. If someone makes an honest mistake without any malicious intent, we will merely ask that person to correct their mistake, without any kind of punitive action.

 

[Jack Straw]

Having high quality content feels so much more important the longer we do this. Especially given that a lot of people who come on here are searching for help and often in a vulnerable state. I feel that we owe it to the community as a whole to amends the rules for the site.

I feel this is very important. Some of the unscientific fear mongering (that would break rules A:2, B:4, B:7, C:10) around here definitely freaks out new comers and is demoralizing to people who are trying to get better and move on.

 

[Hazel]

Where is the Mission Statement posted?

Code of Conduct should be conducive to the mission.

Good point. We will review our mission statement and publish it soon. I agree that the Code of Conduct is closely related to our mission.

 

[Jack Straw]

I honestly hope I'm not spreading harmful misinformation...

I hope you don't feel like I am talking about you in my post, because I am not. I rather enjoy your posts and am always happy to see them.

I will have to say that I am not getting enough of my meme fix from you in MPP.

 

[85dB T]

It isn't meant to be overly punitive, more that there are things we need to tighten up on and places where we need to be better. Most of the things that will be moderated following the new CoC will be done in as friendly way as possible.

We will be quite reliant on people reporting, more so than from us going through posts. A lot of things are those that people dislike so we hope that the final version is something that will benefit (virtually) everyone.

Having high quality content feels so much more important the longer we do this. Especially given that a lot of people who come on here are searching for help and often in a vulnerable state. I feel that we owe it to the community as a whole to amends the rules for the site.

There are so many members. It is difficult to say why people come here without overly generalizing.

People come here for different reasons and what they are looking for widely varies.

A broad separation would be:

Those who recently acquired tinnitus and are panicked.​

Those familiar with tinnitus and want to know more about research and a cure.​

Those who are longtime sufferers looking for mutual understanding and support. To make acquaintances with those like themselves. (No one understands tinnitus suffering better than those with severe tinnitus.)​

"If you have something to share or any ideas on what can make the forum a better place for discussion, please let us know in this thread."

Okay, my suggestion: (re. regarding professionalism and "high quality content")

You may want to consider a "separate but linked" site that is more or less a "sand box" where the fellowship of tinnitus sufferers may do and say as they please with little moderation. Just hang out, laugh, theorize, be sarcastic, complain, criticize, vent, joke ... whatever.​

Two different codes of conduct. Minimal for the "Tinnitus Sand Box" and moderated for "the Main".​

After all, until there is a cure we're a frustrated bunch. Laughing, complaining, joking, and sarcasm are normal coping mechanisms.

 

[BLane]

Nope. Most of the code is common sense. If someone is doing one of those things and you don't like it, simply ignore it. If it has to be enforced then Tinnitus Talk will have lost some of the free and open quality that first attracted me by offering myself and others a place to work through our tinnitus in whatever way we needed at that moment. I always thought this was a place for support, sharing and camaraderie between tinnitus sufferers and not necessarily a medical/scientific platform.

The common thread I've noticed between tinnitus sufferers is frustration - despair - anger combined with a short fuse and a bleak outlook on life. Especially during the early months. They need to vent, they need the ability to find hope in an unsubstantiated 'cure' that may have helped another.

 

[Hazel]

Hi all,

So far, the vast majority seems to be in favour of the new code, which is good news. We also got some useful suggestions for improvement, thanks for that!

While we welcome any critique, we received a few "No" votes without any explanation. We kindly request that if you vote "No" or "Yes, with edits" that you explain your vote either in this public thread or by PM.

Nope. Most of the code is common sense. If someone is doing one of those things and you don't like it, simply ignore it. If it has to be enforced then Tinnitus Talk will have lost some of the free and open quality that first attracted me by offering myself and others a place to work through our tinnitus in whatever way we needed at that moment. I always thought this was a place for support, sharing and camaraderie between tinnitus sufferers and not necessarily a medical/scientific platform.

The common thread I've noticed between tinnitus sufferers is frustration - despair - anger combined with a short fuse and a bleak outlook on life. Especially during the early months. They need to vent, they need the ability to find hope in an unsubstantiated 'cure' that may have helped another.

@BLane, thanks for elaborating on your perspective!

You bring up an important issue regarding Tinnitus Talk being a space for free speech, and in particular venting. In fact, we very much recognize that some people come here to express their frustrations, and we want to provide space for that. As long as people stick to venting about their personal situation without harming others, we don't see a problem with it. As soon as the venting turns into a crusade to convince others of unscientific viewpoints or simply lashing out at others, we're not OK with it anymore.

Personally, I very much doubt that what attracts the majority of Tinnitus Talk members is free speech. I think people come here for support and advice and are hoping to find reliable information. So that's what we seek to provide. I have been thinking though that we should conduct a survey among active members to find out what they really want from the forum and why they come here, because I do realize we're operating on assumptions.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that Tinnitus Talk is more than 'just' a forum. It's part of Tinnitus Hub, whose mission (to be defined more precisely soon) is not only to connect patients among each other, but also to educate patients and to connect patients with researchers. Therefore, it's important to our mission to provide reliable information. We believe that this approach will ultimately have the greatest positive impact on patients' lives, rather than merely providing a space for them to vent.