Code of Conduct

LegacyUser

Ron Tanner said: I’d like to take a minute to express gratitude to all of you who take the initiative to help others in this online community, you have been very helpful to many. I’d also like to thank you for all of the useful, timely feedback you offer about our products and services. We value your input.

Family history is a rewarding activity that has its challenges. We aspire for this community to be a safe and helpful forum for all of our users to ask questions, offer suggestions, or make respectful comments.

We have been using the Code of Conduct in the FamilySearch Terms of Use to moderate these discussions. Lately, we’ve felt a need to clarify a few things and make it easier to understand the governing guidelines for our community discussions. Therefore, we have posted a Code of Conduct on the home page (getsatisfaction.com/familysearch) of this forum. You’ll find the link is in the Additional Support Links box titled Code of Conduct. I’d invite you to please take a moment to familiarize yourself with it, and thank you in advance for helping us foster an inviting, friendly communication culture.

Again, we really appreciate all of the time, energy, and expertise you contribute here.

LegacyUser

Christine said: Thank you for all you and the teams at Family Search do!

LegacyUser

Paul said: Ron

This all seems quite reasonable behaviour to expect, except I'm a little worried about:

"Conjecture, gossip, or debate about the priorities, motives, processes, policies, or competence of FamilySearch or its personnel."

I sincerely hope this will not lead to comments containing constructive criticism being removed by moderators. There have been occasions when I believe some of my comments (and of many other forum participants) could be construed as falling into this category. For example, I (and others) have criticised the serious lack of attention given by the developers in improving the Marriage Events section in Family Tree. We have also been critical of the release of new features that seem clearly not to have been subject to sufficient testing in the beta version beforehand.

Surely we can all learn lessons from our mistakes, so PLEASE (excuse the capitals) do not censure items raised through a genuine concern that an intended enhancement could well lead to negative consequences.

We nearly all have the integrity of the FamilySearch / Family Tree project at heart and nearly always express our views to this end. With apologies that our comments might be expressed in exasperated tones, when we feel a change could well lead to potentially damaging - rather than enhancing - results.

As with Christine, however, I remain most grateful for your efforts and those of your colleagues, at all levels in the organisation.

LegacyUser

Clif Bergmann said: Paul, you may note that criticism or complaints are not called out as forbidden--just conjectures that may or may not be based on such. Expressing genuine concerns professionally should ever result in any censoring.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Thanks for that reassurance, Clif.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: I agree with Paul that"

"Conjecture, gossip, or debate about the priorities, motives, processes, policies, or competence of FamilySearch or its personnel"

is overbroad and I am concerned about this clause.

'Conjecture' and 'Debate' about the policies and priorities of FamilySearch is a major part of this forum, and in my opinion completely legitimate provided it does not become "gossip" or concern the "motives" or "competence" of FamilySearch.

I note also that

"Debate or discussion of topics that are not relevant to family history (like politics or religion)"

will mean that discussion on Latter Day Saint ordinances, another frequent topic, will become out of scope and not allowed on the forum.

LegacyUser

Cousin David said: Thank you for again attempting to clarify the simple message of being polite and kind. There are FAR too many who dominate the conversation and insist on "demanding" things or "steadying the ark", along with much unnecessary harsh criticism.

We are all in this together.

Many thanks for all that FamilySearch does.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: I would hope that discussion on ordinances, where it impinges on what's visible in FS FamilyTree, will still be OK. Non-members like myself can't see the result of our actions on ordinances so we're reliant on advice from LDS members if there are two possible approaches to fixing a data problem. I'd really much rather take the approach that doesn't mess up any ordinances but I clearly need both the advice and the justification. (Why justification? Because I simply don't remember "Do X" instructions - on the other hand, "Do X because of the Y on the Z profile" is much more likely to sink in for me. That's how my brain is built.)

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: Ron,
Thank you for your attempt to encourage civility.

Your first link "Code of Conduct" goes to a FamilySearch page (not the "the home page (getsatisfaction.com/familysearch) of this forum." The second "getsatisfaction.com/familysearch" goes to the forum 'home' page with a link back to this post (and some other items including the 'code' - the third item " FamilySearch monitors this forum, but doesn't comment often." (link) doesn't seem to go anywhere.

"References to content
Link to FamilySearch articles and references. For example, to explain how to reset a FamilySearch Account password, link to a FamilySearch Help Center document rather than third-party instructions not produced by FamilySearch."



I wonder how many users actually go to THAT home page??? Perhaps a better location might be in the right column of "this" page above "Official Representatives"

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: I agree with above comments about the clause "Conjecture, gossip, or debate about the priorities, motives, processes, policies, or competence of FamilySearch or its personnel."

My further comments:
Firstly, what are the FamilySearch priorities? I do not believe I have ever seen a list of priorities. How do we know whether we are breaking this part of the Code of Conduct.

Secondly, to me this raises the issue as to what FamilySearch consider this Feedback Forum to be. From my point of view Feedback includes such thing as the debate of processes and policies. I don't however live in USA (I'm in Australia), so perhaps there is a cultural difference, but I would classify suggestions as part of debate. If FamilySearch doesn't want debate, what does it want for this Forum? This should be written in very specific terms so that we are all aware of what is not wanted. I would also say that when I was still working the department I was in, had continual debate/ discussion about process and polices with the aim of improvement, taking into account views from both inside and outside the department. To me, the fact that FamilySearch does not allow this from its patrons/customers is a sign of stagnation.

Thirdly, I feel the Code of Conduct does not include sufficient information. Some days ago I added what I thought was a completely innocuous comment to a blog, however it appears that it has been moderated out, as it still has not appeared. The only reason I could think of was that it contained an external URL. Please provide adequate information. I have better things to do with my time than to write comments which are not acceptable.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: Personally, this is similar to many other forums' terms.

If I focus on this:
"Thank you for the time you spend asking questions and helping others with their family history. Please follow these standards when communicating with others in any of our online forums:

• Be kind.
• Be honest.
• Be constructive.
• Be relevant."

And not dwell on questioning an organization's priorities then I think I'll be in alignment for the desire of this forum to ask for help and help others.

I feel users can discuss alternatives and still respect others. This isn't a platform for debate, because in the world of today it is too easliy hijacked and not really help the question. I try to say stuff like , "my practice is to...", " or describe how things work underneath to inform others of how to understand the method to the madness that is perceived. 

To quote Bill and Ted, "Be excellent to each other"

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: Following Rober Kehrer's advice for using this forum would certainly keep people within the bounds of this code of conduct. It would be nice if it could be posted somewhere permanently:

https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

Regarding parts of the code of conduct seeming rather broad and vague, having been involved in approving employee handbooks, I have seen how such things need to be in order to cover all the misbehavior one can think of and all the misbehavior one could never have imagined until someone causes a problem that has to be dealt with.

LegacyUser

Kathryn Grant said: Thanks, Ron!

LegacyUser

Paul said: Gordon

With reference to your first paragraph, unfortunately Joe (Martel) appears to have a completely opposing view, so it looks as if this useful advice / post of Robert's is about to be retired.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Robert's post is an excellent guide on how to report stuff. It really ought to be permanently easily accessible. However, it looks like it's been closed to new comments so can't now be bumped

It is, I believe, a different topic from the Code of Conduct. Yes, there'll be some overlap, and it's dangerous to try and summarise in single phrases, but I think Robert's thread is about what we should put in a post reporting an issue, while the Code of Conduct is about how we report it. Or how we phrase it, at any rate.

Maybe Robert's post should be turned into an article, like the Code of Conduct. Not least because it mentions what FS does, which isn't part of the Code of Conduct. (Feel free to tell me it's already an article somewhere if I got it wrong!)

LegacyUser

Sharon O'Donnal said: Thank you for the reminder of the Code of Conduct. I know an individual who was very harshly reprimanded for posting items that another individual considered his own personal property; when in reality the person who posted the items had every right to post the items, as a relative of the individual in the item.

My concern is: was this a general posting of the "Code": or have I been tagged as an offender, and this is a personal notice....

LegacyUser

joe martel said: This was a general posting to the community as a whole. I don't recall any of your replies that crossed the line and would have violated the intent of the site and the desired behavior towards each other. Thanks.

LegacyUser

Chuckie King said: "Conjecture, gossip, or debate about the priorities, motives, processes, policies, or competence of FamilySearch or its personnel."

I've never seen such a starkly worded ban in any forum I have visited. But I know that I have been very frustrated by the very things spelled out in this policy. My guess is that 3 times out of 5, when I use FT, I am frustrated in ways that I never am on other sites.

My take is that if there are violations serious enough, by people who are generally well-mannered, to require this specific language, there is a reason that needs to be understood. FS needs to address the things they do that provoke those violations as strenuously as they address the violations themselves.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: The reality is that such a clause is ridiculous, makes this forum useless and were it enforced would cause more and more violations.

It is also the case that there are plenty of instances of it being perfectly justified to conjecture and debate about the competence of Familysearch. Guess when one of those perfectly justified times is? Now. Why? The very existence of that term calls into question the competence of those who wrote it and of those who approved it. That term is over-broad, ridiculous and massively censorious. The attitude it represents is unbecoming of an American organisation and the clause presents its authors and supporters in a very negative light.

LegacyUser

Christine said: Sorry, but I disagree. We live in a time when online bullying is rampant and familysearch has every right to discourage attacks against their motives, policies, processes, priorities and employees in their own forums. However we want to frame it, this is still a forum belonging to familysearch. We can point out problems and challenges and wish lists and bugs without attacking familysearch, it's employees, or each other. I have generally found genealogists to be caring, unselfish, kind, and helpful and appreciate when that extends to this forum.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Check the change log for this forum, at https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea.... In practice, the FamilySearch "moderators" have, to date, censored very few posts and, hopefully, this will continue to remain the case.

Even regular forum participants who conform to all the "required qualities" in 99% of their posts just occasionally get quite heated in their comments. I have found this to be down to complete exasperation in the feeling their completely reasonable points are being totally ignored.

For example, when no significant enhancements have ever been made in certain areas (like the Couple Relationship area of Family Tree) or an "enhancement" proves to be a backward step in our FamilySearch searches (e.g. modal windows), even the calmest and kindest of FS user would hope for at least some positive response from an employee of the organisation. I have found the issue regarding constructive criticism of specific features being completely ignored causes the most exasperation on this forum, hence leading to harsh remarks.

So, FamilySearch employees, please show a little empathy here. We know you are extremely busy and conscientious, but a little understanding and a brief response (about why a certain feature cannot be developed at present - or has been developed, but in a way that is causing us problems) will go a long way in creating a better atmosphere on this forum.

LegacyUser

Chuckie King said: Don't know if you disagree with me or Newton, but there is the definition of what is an attack. Is a strong criticism an attack, a bullying?

I have found over the decades that FS personnel too often misconstrue strong criticism, both from me and others. One recent criticism produced what struck me as a patronizing and dismissive admonition, essentially that "venting" is not productive.

I also see an institutional resistance at times to acknowledge the problem, and more important, to FIX it. FS has still, several months after I believe more than one person has pointed it out, not fixed the "logout without telling us" problem. This is what ramps up the tone of our criticisms (just as a parent becomes ever more shrill after telling the child 15 times to clean up his room), and why I suggested above that FS look to themselves to see if they are provoking what seems to be an attack.

Joseph Smith himself set the example, once saying ( I paraphrase) that when he received a criticism, he always looked to himself to see if there was any thing in his speech or actions that could itself be censured.Some users may have crossed the line, but FS still needs to examine themselves to see if any fault attaches to them.

Again, why is the phrase "competence of FamilySearch or its personnel", language I have never seen in any other forum, even needed? Surely because some have, whether appropriately or not, pointed out incompetence. Then the question is, "Are the critics right in pointing out incompetence?" If so, it should be addressed regardless of the propriety of the criticism.

This is NOT to tar with a broad brush all FS policies or personnel. FS is doing some amazing things, particularly, for which I am most grateful, in extracting German records.There are many other things for which they can be praised.Nor is all this to deny that bullying occurs. But many of the criticisms are valid. When they see a patron who tells them that 3 times out of 5, an encounter with FS produces frustration, they need to listen.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "FamilySearch has every right to discourage attacks against their motives, policies, processes, priorities and employees in their own forums"

I totally agree.

However, the actual phrasing under debate refers to "Conjecture, gossip, or debate about the priorities, motives, processes, policies, or competence of FamilySearch or its personnel." Yes, the actual written words forbid debate. Debate isn't attack. The written words forbid conjecture. That appears to mean that I can't ask a rhetorical question "Why did FS do XXX?" and then respond to myself with "Well one good reason would be ...." Gossip? Well, hm, I'll allow that is unhelpful though whether it is necessarily an attack is perhaps a moot point.

And remember that the bullet sentence at the head of my comment is actually preceded by: "We do not permit the following behaviors:... " It's not saying, "We'd be concerned about these behaviours". For clarity: I wholly agree that many of the bullets should be forbidden.

Christine - if the Code had borrowed your phrase and referred to "Attacks on the priorities, motives, processes, policies, or competence of FamilySearch or its personnel" then we'd both be in agreement. My only objection is to the curiously wide ranging target.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Consider that I mentally pressed the (non-existent) Good Point button, Paul.

To reinforce what you said, I really, really don't expect fault-free code. Been there, failed to do that. "The only software that's bug-free wasn't worth writing in the first place". (That's my excuse...)

Also, I remember being utterly embarrassed when one of my systems dropped a big no-no but my users / customers were actually very nice about the whole thing: "These things happen". Why were they so forbearing? Partly because it was a rare dropped whatsit and partly because I took good care to inform them of what had happened, and what was going to happen - as soon as I knew.

The degree of responsiveness by FS is, I fear, its Achilles' Heel. I don't expect our pet peeves to be fixed quickly. I certainly don't expect dates by which said peeves will be fixed. (Been there, failed to meet date promises!) But a little acknowledgement and basic explanation will go a long way towards assuring us that we're not being ignored.

(Consider please the way that Ron Tanner did tell us about the introduction of **** relationships in FS FT. We were kept informed. Excellent. It even ended up with some of the non-employee stalwarts in GetSat passing on the same message to others who asked).

LegacyUser

David Newton said: "Familysearch did that well."

Naughty, naughty, naughty! That's "gossip" about the "competence" of Familysearch. That's a forbidden topic under the code of conduct.

Hence my dismissal of the competence of those who wrote that clause and those who support that clause.

LegacyUser

Ron Tanner said: Adrian, as long as you are improving, correcting, or adding persons with appropriate and accurate data there should be no issues that affect ordinances. If you want to discuss this more deeply, then send me an email at ron@familysearch.org

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Thanks Ron. That's pretty much my impression now but deciding it was a step I had to go through at some point, which was helped by discussions on the matter and assurances from this group that everything should be OK.

LegacyUser

TManning said: Ron,
I may be remembering this incorrectly but I seem to remember a post I participated in regarding special characters in the name field, such as Mary (Minnie)in the first name field stopping the performances of ordinances. I am not certain if this is just when a name is submitted and shared with the temple or if a change made by a user to the name field to add the special characters stops all future ordinances scheduled. Would discussions like that violate the conduct code? I know personally I prefer to see the formal baptismal name or official registered birth name used for the ordinance but others who perhaps knew the person better may know they were called a nickname or middle name and prefer to see that listed as the name. Can we still discuss issues like this? I do not want to offend someone whose submission I am changing and how will they know if we cannot discuss ordinance requirements here? How can I explain to the community as a whole why great uncle Ted must remain as Theodore in the tree for the next five years?

LegacyUser

joe martel said: Another option to discuss temple stuff is to use the communities groups at https://community.familysearch.org/s/

LegacyUser

TManning said: Thank you Joe. But is there a way to let both LDS and non- LDS users know about restrictions imposed on names (such as certain special characters prohibited),and that dates and places need to be standardized and certain error conditions(such as possible duplicates resolved) before a name can be submitted for temple work? I believe non-LDS users would understand if only they knew why we were modifying names or making other changes we need to remain. In fact, a technical question arises: Does family search software keep the name on the person for all temple work or does it re-read the name from the person prior to doing each ordinance? If it does re-read the name, the change needs to remain until the ordinances finish. If the name is whatever it was at the time I submit a name for temple work, I can change Ted to Theodore, submit him for temple work, then change his name back to Ted to match the wishes of the person who originally entered his data. Maybe that question should be a separate thread. If so sorry.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: I know there are knowledge articles about that. As for the technical I have no clue. Yes, you may want to open new threads about specific issues you feel would be helpful to know.