ETHMagicians Council of Prague - Integrity ring - Community Code of Conduct



See the notes here:

Working doc for potential CoC:

Added on 3/12 by @jpitts:

The GitHub repo contains periodic updates to the proposed CoC (@jpitts will submit PRs when the HackMD stabilizes after discussions). Please use the issues to track the work, and submit PRs for changes to the CoC.

Forming a Ring: Preserving Integrity

@jpitts @wmougayar @Tegan @chaals (please tag others!) here are the docs - I am trying to find a spot, i would appreciate some help on cleaning up the coc v1 or commenting


New CoC document, already cleaned up:
To be presented tomorrow at 12:50 at the ETHcc Hall Paul Painleve


Looks good in latest revision! I was going to make some comments about defining the various key terms, but I was beaten to it.


Thank you! And we will probably need to iterate several times, your feedback’s always welcomed.


Please let us know here if you would like to be added as a committer to the GitHub repo, this repo will enable us to coordinate on feedback and finalization, as well as to have versioning of releases of the policy.

As Maria Paula pointed out, the active working document is


That would be great - I’ve not used Github before, but would love to get involved. Just made an account with the same username.


I haven’t yet read the latest revision deeply enough to comment on its content, but a few meta-questions came to mind.

What would adoption of this CoC look like? The section of the document headed “Code of Conduct” could be a template that any particular group can publish, but the “Intent” section seems mostly to be reasons why a group should adopt it. Maybe this can go in a separate document, which could also expand on implementation protocols?

Is there any guidance for community members operating in a space that does not have a CoC? This is especially relevant in light of recent events.


How it is adopted needs to be explored. One approach may be a set of steps for adoption to be considered valid. The team creates a repo called policies, then creates a copy of this Code of Conduct there. The team then announces adoption on their social media channels, and links to it on their website.

Lacking a CoC from themselves or their “parent” organization means that team leadership, contributors, and participants at events are likely to have an inconsistent or even unthoughtful response to incidents which may happen.

Intent is important to include in the policy itself, in order for all of the relevant pieces of the policy to be easily and quickly understood.


@jpitts Adoption via Github does seem like natural protocol here…where many of these teams are ‘located’ and have online IDs (can also use keybase or similar to connect other social media profiles to this Github adoption…see, e.g., Aragon coop profiles:

For ease of teams to track versioning-up of C-CoC, Integrity Ring might have its own standalone repo maintaining iterations that folks can fork to adopt most recent C-CoC version?


@mariapaulafn continuing our discussion re: potential Twitter adoption protocol / prevention scheme for C-CoC…(verrrrrry loose ideas below, but hope helpful to throw out ideas!)

(i) Might consider EthMagicians tweeting/pinning most recent version of C-CoC ( for ‘tentative adoption via Retweet’ w/ #SignCoC and comment… As language stands, it could probably already add some comfort to online ‘discourse’ with less vague sense of norms…

(ii) In terms of ‘prevention scheme,’ EthMagicians could then Tweet link to C-CoC with ‘Twitter ADR Rider’ stating that anyone that retweets w/ “#ArbCoC” agrees to remove an offensive tweet against another member when such tweet is found to violate C-CoC by independent C-CoC member…w/ such third party to be whoever Complainant and ‘Complainee’ both agree to tag on Twitter in their ‘dispute thread’ hashing out Twitter offense…


What is a “Twitter ADR Rider?”

Also, I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying with (ii). The general idea seems to be that if someone violates the CoC a community member can flag it. Then a moderator from that channel will take a look at it and evaluate it against the latest CoC right? What would a ‘dispute thread’ hashing out a Twitter offense look like?


Yeah, I should define my terms better.

When I say ‘Rider,’ I basically mean concise statement that folks might adopt in addition to CoC language … laying out mechanism to enforce CoC on Twitter and get folks to selfcensor/delete harmful Tweets because Twtr might be unreliable moderator (despite this being perhaps broadest, most active forum for Ethereum discussions…). Still definitely just tossing out ideas to the wind though; glad to try and think through other particulars.

A dispute thread might look like this:

*Offending Tweet

Bob: Hey @Carl19283, this tweet ^^ would seem to violate CoC, could you remove?
Carl: I don’t see a problem here; also, just trolling :wink:
Bob: Meh, it’s good to just clarify these things for the community. @John129283, can you #ArbCoC this biz? Does that work for you @Carl19283?
Carl: Fair enough!
John: This is a doozy and certainly would violate CoC as I understand it. Alright Carl, will you be chill and delete?
Carl: Fine fine.
John: #ArbCoC success!


Not sure if this is the best place to share feedback. If not please let me know. Anyways, hope this is helpful :slight_smile:

It’s great that the community is creating a Community Code of Conduct. Even cooler is that it’ opt-in. When organizations and individuals buy-in they’re doing so against the default. They’re taking action. That’s meaningful.

I agree with everything in the doc and it all makes sense, except the part on Unwelcomed Behavior. This part is very vague. What is unpolite or unprofessional to one person might be honest to another. As Linus said “On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle.”

Also, too often smart people will hide ill intent behind polite speech. They’re very good at it. Also, sometimes those who are rough around the edges are the most caring. They say things that are less than eloquent, but have good intentions and honest feedback. They’re willing to say the truth, and sometimes that’s hard. The world isn’t this black and white, but it’s important to keep these things in mind.

In the CoC doc there’s a list of “questions to ask yourself.” These are a good start, but I can see a whole host of situations where this could get complicated. Everything’s relative. Human’s operate on subjective viewpoints, but there’s no global “truth”. It comes down to how people feel. This is treacherous confusing territory.

With these questions the goal seems to be to reduce drama and increase empathy? If so, here’s a few more questions that have helped me avoid conflict and drama. These questions do not directly address more hostile forms of negative behavior. They address what often leads to conflict and drama: miscommunication. For me, thinking about incentives and playing to win a positive sum game is much easier and more compelling than thinking about “feelings.” Here’s a few ways I frame that:

Am I playing a positive sum game?

  • Do I feel like it’s a game of “us/me vs them?” If so, are there any ideas or solutions that would be a win/win?

  • Am I taking into consideration the interests of all parties involved, or just my own?

Am I talking about the person, or their ideas/actions?

  • It’s always a good idea to be easy on people, but hard on ideas.
  • Am I taking someone’s criticism of my ideas as an attack on me as a person? If so, try re-reading/thinking about it, but imagining it’s someone else’s idea. Does it look different from that perspective?

Am I creating value?

  • If I am highlighting a problem, am I also proposing a solution? If so, is that solution supported by facts as well as feedback from the community? If not, am I seeking out feedback to create a win/win scenario or trying to sell people on my idea vs theirs?

  • If I am highlighting a problem, what would have to change for that to no longer be a problem. What needs to happen to make it better? Sharing this feedback with other party could help facilitate constructive conversations rather than being stuck in the land of opinions and emotions.

  • If I am proposing a solution, is it a solution for me or for all parties involved? If all parties involved would not be happy with this idea, is there a way to change it where they would be?

Are we talking about facts, or opinions?

  • Can I back my idea up with facts? If so, what are those? Share them. If not, why? More research would make for a more persuasive discussion.
  • Can I argue for the other side of this issue as well, or do I only understand my own viewpoint?

I don’t know much about Ethereum Magicians or rolling CoCs, but I hope this is helpful. Also, if this isn’t the right place for feedback or this direction isn’t useful please let me know! :slight_smile:


And what about the other scenario where Carl is not so chill and does not delete it? What then?

  • note: I think that overall having a system like this is 10X better than having no system, but it’s good to design for failure. Curious what failure and conflict looks like in this context and how it can be minimized.


@ross, agreed, I am starting to think that this should be in its own repo once the proposal reaches “final”, in order to ease in the release, adoption, and forking process.


I also support this. As someone new to the Magicians and C-CoC, a GitHub repo would make it easy to find the latest version of the doc. It also adds transparency and lets anyone to see the history and evolution of the C-CoC over time.


Having re-read that section, I now better understand its purpose - its a message from those who have already adopted the C-CoC to a reader who may be in a position to promote or even adopt it themselves. However, I still think there is a lot of further information (currently largely contained in this thread) that could be formalized with associated “Implemention and Adoption” documentation. A Github repo would be a good place for this, especially as HackMD has poor version control and author / revision management tools (just based on my initial impressions).

Interesting ideas - so essentially the community becomes self-moderating, having agreed to the C-CoC protocols beforehand. I like how it allows reliable community adhesion to a protocol on an “unreliable” medium like Reddit or Twitter. I do have some initial concerns that may need ironing out.

  1. I think for this to be effective, there needs to be a reliable way for community members to indicate that they have adopted the C-CoC. Otherwise, the self-moderating aspect of this protocol is unlikely to work. I think that there would need to be some research into what can be done with Twitter and Reddit names and flair to indicate this.

  2. The follow-on question would be - who will be considered an independent C-CoC member, to provide arbitration? Can we consider all members to be suitable for this role? How can they be found - would there need to be a list? This “list” could also take the form of a semi-automated account on the platform in question, that can then further notify the real arbitrators.

  3. I like the simple and self-contained nature of this protocol, and have great faith in the ability of well-intentioned people to self-regulate, but it may also be worth putting some thought into how any disputes would be resolved.

@burrrata - thanks for the input on the “questions” section. I think you have some well-reasoned and useful additions. I would say go ahead and add them, but maybe the length of these additions shows it is time to get some version control and structured discussion. @jpitts @mariapaulafn Do you have any opinions on using HackMD vs Github? Personally, I think that the tools available on Github would allow a more polished result for an initial release.


The core concept that we are discussing here is communication, and I think that consistency and clarity are the essential goals to that end. There are already Integrity and Signalling Rings existing around this topic, but to me they seem like disconnected halves - I think that Clarity is the connecting link.


I agree. This is powerful.

Also agree.

As far as indication goes, a social media flare might be a little weird. It would create an “us” and “them” group. Whether or not that’s the intention, anything that allows for differentiation also allows for discrimination.

What about a file in the repo like what Aragon did, or like the people who supported the Pitchforks are for hay not hate letter? You could even bake it into a smart contract. People would opt-in by sending a tx to the contract. The action shows they really care, it’s publicly verifiable, and you can’t sign someone up without their consent. It’s also completely open so anyone can choose to join and contribute :slight_smile:

It’s essential to put thought into how disputes would be resolved. Otherwise at the first sign of trouble the entire system will devolve into a sea of confusion and frustration. If the system doesn’t work, no one will trust it. It needs to work. Do you guys have any ideas how we could test that out? Like would we have to role play various scenarios in a red team / blue team game like the infosec community? lol

Also, glad my suggestions were helpful. I don’t think it makes sense to put them in the main CoC doc, but they could become part of a supporting doc. That way if people opt-in to the CoC they’ll have the latest CoC doc to refer to, but also a set of supplementary guides. These could include:

  • tips for conflict resolution,
  • communication best practices,
  • values the community shares, etc…

The CoC says what not to do. The supplementary guides could provide suggestions on what to do. This would help cap the downside of negative behaviors, but also provide support and direction for positive growth. It works for tomato plants ¯\_(ツ)_/¯