Should there be explicit language in the CEPC Regarding "Sea Lioning"?

[torgo]

W3C process only functions smoothly when people engage in discussions in good faith. In some cases, people engaging in W3C discussions use the w3c process in order to stall discussion, sow confusion, or sabotage some existing work. Should we have some explicit language in the CEPC to help members of our community handle these types of situations?

[nigelmegitt]

Thanks for raising this @torgo ; I'm not sure if this is related, but for additional context I made a comment recently on a Chairs email thread highlighting that arguments (or even just private wonderings) about whether there has or has not been a breach of the CEPC can take energy and time out of a meeting, and there should be a way for a Chair (or possibly someone else) to exercise a "we're going to deal with this later" rule, possibly alongside some kind of temporary suspension of participation for the individuals involved; indeed it may be helpful for the Chair not to have discretion about exercising such a rule, for the sake of making it easier to reconcile later.

The goal would be to allow work to proceed most easily without penalising everyone who is behaving properly.

It is possible that individuals could deliberately behave in a way that is arguably either a breach or not a breach of the CEPC purely in order to sidetrack a group and stall work. This is where there is crossover between (mis)use of the process and the CEPC specifically.

There is a general case "misuse of the process" and a special sub-set of that "misuse of the process in relation to the CEPC"; the general case surely is something that needs to be addressed somewhere, perhaps the Guide.

But I agree we should consider the special sub-set case here particularly in the light of the CEPC.

Incidentally, the title of this issue includes the phrase "sea lioning" (wikipedia page on sea-lioning) but the description relates this specifically to the w3c process; perhaps there are two separate issues here?

1. deliberate misuse or near-misuse of the W3C Process in relation to the CEPC
2. persistent unnecessary questions whose goal is to trigger an angry response that is itself a breach of the CPEC and therefore stall work or remove a participant with a contrary view, without otherwise (currently) breaching the CEPC, i.e. a wider "sea-lioning" clause that could be added to the CEPC

I'm not sure which of these was intended?

In relation to the first, I would like the PWETF to consider what would be a reasonable, standard, W3C-endorsed approach here:

• who? This would be for Chairs or others empowered as such, maybe staff members
• what and why? An action that either can be taken, or is required to taken, in order to move work on when [some condition that needs to be defined] is triggered, where the effect is to stop or delay normal work and cause argument about an unrelated topic
• where? To be defined in the CEPC (or the Process?), and actionable wherever there is interaction between participants in W3C groups.
• when? A short term response with a follow-up within a defined period.

In relation to the second, I agree that sea-lioning is unacceptable behaviour, and would like to think Chairs have, if they detect or suspect it, the discretionary power to direct the conversation in a more fruitful direction; nevertheless, adding it to the bullet list of unacceptable behaviours seems completely reasonable to me.

One follow-up question I have is: if things get out of hand and a sea-lioning attempt by SL is successful before anyone has managed to intervene, and the recipient R is in fact goaded into some unacceptable behaviour, should that modify the response, e.g. any potential sanction, that is applied to R?

[plinss]

Highly supportive, but I think this should be expanded beyond sea lioning, there are other toxic behaviors that can be harmful, here's some examples: https://psychcentral.com/blog/psychology-self/2018/08/narcissist-arguing

[torgo]

I don't completely subscribe to everything in this article but I think it's in some ways a good encapsulation of the problem of bad-faith activity. @nigelmegitt I think some of what you described above is dependent on strong chairing. For example, in the context of a meeting I think it's totally reasonable to time-box discussions on certain topics, or to side-line certain issues to break-out groups. TAG would not be able to function without break-outs and time-boxing. But when it comes to bad-faith actors, I think we need some guidelines about what constitutes bad behaviour so people can potentially be censured or put in bad-standing when they engage in these behaviours. Are there any codes of conduct in the open source world that already do this?

[TzviyaSiegman]

Thanks for the discussion. For context, the definition of sea lioning, per wikipedia:

a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity...It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate"

As with most of CEPC, I think it would be helpful to make sure that the language is broad enough that it can convey more than one specific behavior.

I am wondering if adding an item to the Unacceptable Behaviors section along the lines of:

• Arguing in bad faith
• Persistent demands for evidence, especially in matters when evidence is not needed (e.g. opinions)

@nigelmegitt I think the role of chair, etc is a separate topic.

[nigelmegitt]

@torgo @TzviyaSiegman am I right in thinking that you each believe that the answer to the "who?" question I posed in relation to any action that should be taken is "The Chair"? That isn't obvious to me, especially because the answer might be the Chair and/or others, e.g. staff.

As I mentioned in my original comment, this issue could do with disentangling into one issue for sea lioning (possibly extended to other generic bad behaviours) and another for abuse of the Process itself. @torgo since you raised the issue, perhaps you could clarify your intent?

[TzviyaSiegman]

@nigelmegitt CEPC is about the responsibility of indviduals.

The CEPC is complemented by a set of Procedures, applies to any member of the W3C community – staff, members, invited experts, and participants in W3C meetings, W3C teleconferences, W3C mailing lists, code repositories, W3C conferences or W3C functions, etc. Note that this code complements rather than replaces legal rights and obligations pertaining to any particular situation.

For the most part, we do not get into the details of how to manage a violation in this document.

I did attempt to split this into 2 items, but I had a different proposal for how to split it. I think that simply saying "using the process against itself" might not be clear" and also leaves room for abusing other formalities. What do you think of the proposal above?

[nigelmegitt]

CEPC is about the responsibility of indviduals.

@TzviyaSiegman right, but the CEPC isn't the only place where this could go.

[TzviyaSiegman]

@nigelmegitt this thread is explicitly about CEPC. Please open a new issue if you'd like to discuss other documents.

[dwsinger]

Another example is when people take offense where none is intended, and then insist on actions or conclusions because of the offense. "I'm offended, and so we must X…" — it's a controlling behavior, trying to ensure that the focus is on that person's anger, and not the overall subject at hand. It also raises the temperature, as now we're dealing with angry people; generally we ask people to try to do the precise opposite — that even when something might have been offensive, try to interpret it nonetheless in the most helpful way, and find the valid points that are worth responding to, in order to reduce the temperature and move the actual discussion along.

[chaals]

IMHO we empower chairs to deal with this - they have the authority to manage the agenda, timebox discussions, close down issues, and so on.

What is the procedure for arguing that a chair is overstepping their authority? Who makes that assessment, and how do we communicate that to ensure that over time the examples converge to a consistent standard?

[plinss]

I agree that chairs are not only empowered to deal with this, but dealing with such behavior is a requirement of a good chair. However, I also believe that the power to close off discussion when, in the chair's judgement, a participant is acting in bad faith is more of a convention and it's not clear to me that such power is explicitly stated anywhere.

Having this type of behavior explicitly called out will be valuable.

If a chair oversteps, the recourse is to appeal to an ombud. The problem is that people who engage in these types of tactics will also abuse the ombud process and claim that their behavior isn't specifically disallowed, unless it clearly is.

Furthermore, the way we converge on a consistent standard is to make best efforts to define the types of behavior that are not allowed in an open format, such as this issue.

[TheMaskMaker]

New (several months) Member's perspective:

I'd like to make a note here that banning 'sea lioning' could empower trolls and power abusers, rather than weaken them. These abusers of silencing tactics have made accusations of sealioning and simliar 'time wasting' against voices and concerns they have wished to bury. Participants are ignored, or deceptive tactics are used to avoid a question, or a participant is redirected to ask a question another different group, sometimes in an endless chain. They then have to ask the same question again, not for any malicious reason, but because they are a victim of a trolling tactic.

In a minor abuse case, this is called 'gaslighting.' When 1 member of the W3 wishes to disregard a point made by pretending it does not exist. They make a nonsensical claim about the question or point and conclude it should be disregarded. There is nothing a victim can do but assume good faith confusion and repeat the point to clear up the 'confusion.' The victim is then accused of 'time wasting.'

The worst abuse case is one of power abuse. The objective of this silencing tactic is often one in which a group's moderator or chair(s) wishes avoid answering a question about a concern, because answering it would either reveal a violation of W3 policy, or expose a serious problem. If the question is evaded, however, there is deniability later, and the damage is done.

As a new member, and one whose time here is/was limited, I have felt the full brunt of such tactics. New members have no idea what recourse if any exists, and do not feel comfortable filing a complaint especially against persons in power. There is an element of fear. And it is not very provable. And if you have a minority opinion it is even more difficult.

[TheMaskMaker]

Noteworthy from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Specifically

As described by Patricia Evans, seven "warning signs" of gaslighting are the observed abuser's[25]

• Withholding information from the victim;
• Countering information to fit the abuser's perspective;
• Discounting information;
• Using verbal abuse, usually in the form of jokes;
• Blocking and diverting the victim's attention from outside sources;
• Trivializing ("minimising") the victim's worth; and,
• Undermining the victim by gradually weakening them and their thought processes.

[EDIT, I made everything super bold somehow, fixing)

[TzviyaSiegman]

@TheMaskMaker if you are concerned about gas lighting, please open a separate issue or PR. Thank you