Code of Conduct for fan productions?

[Professor Zoom]

I'm responsible if I sit on the sidelines while their time is being abused.

Who are you to decide? Those that were posting didn't seem like their time was being wasted.

I fail to see how dedication to finding pertinent information is a sign of immaturity. Intentionally burying that information under a pile of useless comments, however, strikes me as very immature.

Most people are grownups = they can decide for themselves if there time is being wasted. They don't need someone to tell them that.

Hmm... My concern would be that such a contract may be too restrictive. It may prevent me from, for instance, debuting a film in a local theater for my friends or screening it at a convention using a Blu-ray.

But it can't hurt to look into it.

As I recall, from using the contract, private screenings weren't forbidden. The intention is to put it up on the web. If you are screening it and charging tickets, that's when SAG might have a problem.

Of course, I don't know what part of the country you are in, but, if there aren't any SAG actors in your area, then it's moot to use the contract.

Right, but I see value in assuring your cast, crew and contributors that you're playing by a certain set of rules. That's one of the reasons that STC's 501(c)(3) status was important: it sent a message about what rules they were playing by.

501 c 3 is about your tax status as an entity. It has nothing to about conduct of crew and cast during production. The only message that 501 c 3 sends is "Hey, we're a non-profit." It doesn't tell you anything about the behavior of people during production.

 

[urbandefault]

I'm responsible if I sit on the sidelines while their time is being abused.

I fail to see how dedication to finding pertinent information is a sign of immaturity. Intentionally burying that information under a pile of useless comments, however, strikes me as very immature.

Hmm... My concern would be that such a contract may be too restrictive. It may prevent me from, for instance, debuting a film in a local theater for my friends or screening it at a convention using a Blu-ray.

But it can't hurt to look into it.

According to the Contributor Covenant, the person or people running the project in question.

Then the people running the fan production wasted their time creating a code of conduct they never intended to enforce.

(* Sigh! *)

Right, but I see value in assuring your cast, crew and contributors that you're playing by a certain set of rules. That's one of the reasons that STC's 501(c)(3) status was important: it sent a message about what rules they were playing by.

So, the people running each fan production police and enforce the "code"?

How is that different from what each production does now? Every fan production is a small group of people there for a common goal. If there are troublemakers, I'm sure that they're shown the door.

Why should there be a universal set of rules for independent productions to follow, if no one enforces them but themselves?

Were you not allowed to join / kicked out of a fan production? Is that what this is all about?

I see problems here.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Who are you to decide? Those that were posting didn't seem like their time was being wasted.

I'm the one who decides the topic because I started the thread. Isn't that obvious? As for those who posted off topic, the number of posts is not an excuse.

Most people are grownups = they can decide for themselves if there time is being wasted. They don't need someone to tell them that.

I'm not telling them that. I'm telling the people who are posting off topic. The people looking for information shouldn't have to make a determination as to whether their time is being wasted because people shouldn't be wasting their time in the first place.

As I recall, from using the contract, private screenings weren't forbidden. The intention is to put it up on the web. If you are screening it and charging tickets, that's when SAG might have a problem.

Of course, I don't know what part of the country you are in, but, if there aren't any SAG actors in your area, then it's moot to use the contract.

Yeah, you're probably right. It just so happens that I have some additional requirements that make things more difficult specifically for my project. Specifically, I want to release content under an open license (probably CC-BY-SA), and any restrictions that conflict with the license would be a problem. For everyone else, it's probably not an issue, and the New Media Contract should work fine.

501 c 3 is about your tax status as an entity. It has nothing to about conduct of crew and cast during production. The only message that 501 c 3 sends is "Hey, we're a non-profit." It doesn't tell you anything about the behavior of people during production.

I was making an analogy, not a direct comparison. The idea is that 501(c)(3) gives people some assurance that they're not just using the money for their own purposes, while a code of conduct give people a certain amount of assurance that the people involved in the production will be treated well. They both reassure, but in different ways.

So, the people running each fan production police and enforce the "code"?

How is that different from what each production does now? Every fan production is a small group of people there for a common goal. If there are troublemakers, I'm sure that they're shown the door.

That's one of the questions I was originally asking. For fan productions under the Guidelines, this might be less of an issue because you have a smaller group working for a shorter amount of time. For long-form and/or serialized content, the projects last long enough and involve enough people that they may want the assurance of an official code of conduct.

Why should there be a universal set of rules for independent productions to follow, if no one enforces them but themselves?

They don't have to be universal. It's fine for different projects to have different rules or no rules at all. It's their choice. I'm merely trying to find a code of conduct that people can use, not one that they have to use.

Were you not allowed to join / kicked out of a fan production? Is that what this is all about?

Not at all. This isn't about telling people what they have to do with their projects. At the same time, though, there's no reason people can't work together on a code of conduct. Just as they don't have to use one, they also don't have to reinvent the wheel either.

 

[Maurice]

I don't we have to presume a personal stake or grudge here, @urbandefault.

"There oughta be a law" is a common enough reaction to solving problems, as if imposing rules fixes things.

 

[fireproof78]

Perhaps a Code of Conduct could be crafted based upon examples given and the input of those working on the project? That way the crew feel like they have input upon these rules and maybe more invested in their application and enforcement.

Even at my work, with group therapy, we allow groups to set their own norms in addition to some real basic principles like confidentiality. Unless there is a final arbiter of the "Code of Conduct?"

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Note: I now realize @Time is the Fire was not trying to Gaslight me and that this was a misunderstanding on my part, and I wish to apologize. I will be discussing this with him later in a separate conversation (when I've gotten some sleep).

Perhaps a Code of Conduct could be crafted based upon examples given and the input of those working on the project? That way the crew feel like they have input upon these rules and maybe more invested in their application and enforcement.

I like the idea of revising the code of conduct using input from the cast and crew. I see no need to start from scratch, though. You can begin with a basic code of conduct and tweak it over time.

Even at my work, with group therapy, we allow groups to set their own norms in addition to some real basic principles like confidentiality. Unless there is a final arbiter of the "Code of Conduct?"

If, by final arbiter, you mean some central agency that determines the code of conduct for every production, then no. And that's not what the Contributor Covenant is either. You are free to use the Covenant as-is, or modify it, or not use it at all. There are no obligations. The number of projects that use it are simply a reflection of the fact that people have limited time and don't want to reinvent the wheel.

 

[fireproof78]

If, by final arbiter, you mean some central agency that determines the code of conduct for every production, then no. And that's not what the Contributor Covenant is either. You are free to use the Covenant as-is, or modify it, or not use it at all. There are no obligations. The number of projects that use it are simply a reflection of the fact that people have limited time and don't want to reinvent the wheel.

By final arbiter, I more mean who is going to enforce it during the project? For instance, if some one breaks the Code of Conduct who is going to be asking for corrected behavior?

I don't expect this to be some agency or union with enforcement power. More of a pragmatic question as to how they would be enforced at the production level?

I agree that not starting from scratch makes sense, but my general experience is that groups are pretty good at setting up their norms.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

By final arbiter, I more mean who is going to enforce it during the project?

Specifically for the Contributor Covenant, whoever's running the project. I suppose it could be anyone you want, such as a council you set up to hear complaints, or a designated person who has experience adjudicating such disputes, but considering whoever runs the project would decide how that works, I see that as merely delegation. Whoever is ultimately in charge is responsible either directly or by proxy. Unless you're running the project like pure democracy, in which case everyone's responsible.

For instance, if some one breaks the Code of Conduct who is going to be asking for corrected behavior?

I presume the accuser/plaintiff.

I don't expect this to be some agency or union with enforcement power. More of a pragmatic question as to how they would be enforced at the production level?

I think it depends of the size of your production. In small groups, you're either talking about yourself the producer making that judgement and removing the person from the project, or if someone has experience dealing with such issues, you may wish to delegate that responsibility to them. (For instance, if someone has actually worked in an HR department experience dealing with complaints of misbehavior or something.)

If you have a larger group, you may want to have dedicated personnel that deal with things like harassment complaints like many companies have. Typically, in large organizations, there are multiple individuals you can report problems to. (A dedicated person in HR, your supervisor, his supervisors, an anonymous hotline, et cetera.)

How exactly do you set this up? I don't know. That's why I started this thread in the firs place: to discuss how codes of conduct could work in fan productions.

I agree that not starting from scratch makes sense, but my general experience is that groups are pretty good at setting up their norms.

There's something to be said for benefiting from the experience of other groups, though. You can't always predict what you need before it happens. I think you'd be better off picking what you think is a solid preexisting code of conduct and doing Kanban-style refinement at regular intervals.

 

[fireproof78]

It's an interesting discussion and with all the fan projects I've been on there was never a code of conduct. Granted, these were very small productions, and we all got along pretty well and if there was a problem we worked it out.

I know you're trying to pick brains of more experienced people. Might I recommend the Fan Film section of the Jedi Council forums? A lot of people there have a lot more experience in terms of the production side.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Sounds like a good idea. I'll give that a shot.