The Kiva Friends Guiding Principles

[Guest]

.

[RichardF]

The KivaFriends.org Terms of Use & Registration Agreement clearly spell out what is expected of those who participate here.  On a deeper level, however, the members of the Kiva Friends Community by and large operate under a more profound and tacit set of guiding principles. 

While learning the ropes of what is within the preferred bounds of discourse and what crosses the invisible line is best developed through direct personal experience, what if some of these potential guiding principles were set out for all to see and subjected to the same fine-toothed comb examination as any other topic presented here?  What would these Kiva Friends Guiding Principles look like?

This is an attempt to find out.

To get the ball rolling, here is a list of possible guiding principles.  Except for the first one listed, they are modeled after some of the policies on working with others and behavior guidelines at Wikipedia.  The first possible guiding principle is an attempt to get at the core reason why KivaFriends.org even exists at all and how that can be placed into a meaningful context for most likely discussion board interactions.


Above all else, it’s about the Kiva entrepreneurs

This principle in a nutshell: While Kiva Friends is a community for lenders, by lenders, it would not exist if it were not for the Kiva entrepreneurs.  Because of this, all interactions on Kiva Friends must be conducted with the best interests of the entrepreneurs at heart.  At the same time, Kiva, its field partners and lenders all play critical and valued roles in helping to alleviate the conditions of poverty for the entrepreneurs. They also deserve to be treated with dignity and respect at all times. 


Assume good faith

This principle in a nutshell: Even when there may be strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who participate in discussions are trying to contribute to them, not hurt anyone or anything related to them. If criticism is needed, discuss participants' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives. If you are concerned that bad faith is motivating a participants' actions, trust that the moderators will take any action that is warranted.

Wikipedia example


Civility

This principle in a nutshell: Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other participants whenever possible.

Wikipedia example


No personal attacks

This principle in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Wikipedia example


Respectful dispute resolution

This principle in a nutshell: Dispute resolution processes will treat all parties with dignity and respect.

Wikipedia example

[AccountAbility]

I hear you, Richard, and applaud your first post here as a very cogent summation of rules of conduct.

I do fear, though, that such rules are sometimes of more use in giving confirmation of good conduct to those of us who remain well within their bounds than to act as a useful deterrent to those who would break them.

That said, it probably is worthy of a consciousness raising discussion at least.

Dan

[P, B and J]

Thank you for doing all of this Richard!  I'm definitely bookmarking these very useful and timely considerations, info and links.

[...]
I do fear, though, that such rules are sometimes of more use in giving confirmation of good conduct to those of us who remain well within their bounds than to act as a useful deterrent to those who would break them.

That said, it probably is worthy of a consciousness raising discussion at least.

Dan

I do see your point Dan.   I think that these things are good to have easy access to when things get very volatile and can perhaps help to clarify a mixed jumble of emotions one may be feeling, consequently turning things into something that is maybe more productive than combative, more considerate than callous.  I think all can learn from it, although all may not want to. [Edited portion follows] But if they don't want to learn and don't want to practice some introspection (which their actions may seemingly indicate [though who could really know but themselves, hence the need to do some introspection(!)], then I would personally just really wonder about intentions and what needs are getting met. IMHO

[RichardF]

I do fear, though, that such rules are sometimes of more use in giving confirmation of good conduct to those of us who remain well within their bounds than to act as a useful deterrent to those who would break them.

Hey, Dan.  I stated these assertions as principles so they can be more easily thought of as aspirations.  The Terms of Use & Registration Agreement handle misconduct in a more straightforward manner.  Add to that, "All things in moderation" (pun intended) and you have a framework and process in place for supporting positive experiences and managing potentially damaging ones.

P, B and J - Time is an illusion. 

[waywardcats]

Thank you Richard for this thoughtful post.  I think you have done a great job in putting this together.   

There is only one change that I would like to suggest and that is to this paragraph.

Assume good faith

This principle in a nutshell: Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who participate in discussions are trying to contribute to them, not hurt anyone or anything related to them. If criticism is needed, discuss participants' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives.

Wikipedia example

My suggestion is to replace the phrase "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary" with "Even when there may be strong evidence to the contrary".  Along with this an additional phrase at the end: "If you are concerned that bad faith is motivating a participants' actions, trust that the moderators will take any action that is warranted."

The new paragraph would therefore read:

"Even when there may be strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who participate in discussions are trying to contribute to them, not hurt anyone or anything related to them. If criticism is needed, discuss participants' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives. If you are concerned that bad faith is motivating a participants' actions, trust that the moderators will take any action that is warranted."

-Kerry-

[RichardF]

There is only one change that I would like to suggest and that is to this paragraph.

Assume good faith...

Done.