Rules for BCH Telegram and Session communities, developed as OS project

Communication
#1

Summary:

Due to popular demand, I am starting a project to create new set of BCH groups that aim to create sane, pleasant and forgiving places for Bitcoin Cash users and developers to discuss.

Motivation:
It came to my attention that currently all Telegram and Session groups, except these run by myself do not actually have any kind of proper written rules, like we had on Reddit for decades, so this project is an attempt to create such groups and sets of rules for each place/channel so that the communities can not only naturally evolve but also influence how these places are run.

Implementation:

I plan to run 4 places currently that implement the rules,

  • BCH Offtopic channel (already active)
  • BCH Devs & Builders channel (in the works right now)
  • BCH General Channel (in the works right now)
  • BCH Price Channel (coming up later in the year)

Initial ruleset

Gitlab link:

===============================================
BCH Moderator Code of Conduct v2025.07.30.02

Primary directive:

Moderators are not almighty gods that should be worshipped, users should not have to magically read the mind of moderators in order to determine if they can do something or they cannot do something.

Moderators are executors of written rules. Written rules are not written in stone forever either, they can be improved over time in appropriate discussion places (like BCH Research), exactly like software is improved over time.

Secondary directive:

Users should be treated like intelligent well-meaning human beings; with dignity, respect and understanding even if they do break some rules. It’s recognizable that due to heated discussion “things can happen”, sometimes. Human beings generally do that and it is considered normal. With this is mind, for all such normal users, treatment like warnings, temporary mutes, temporary bans should be completely sufficient.

Really harsh treatment (permanent bans) is only reserved for

  • Bots that pretend to be humans, scammers and spammers
  • The absolutlely worst cases of users that have zero intention of improving themselves and instead they want to disrtupt discussion forums, attack other people, troll and make them unusable for everybody else.

===============================================
BCH Development Chats rules, v2025.07.30.02

For “known” or “legit” people [includes people known and having reputation in the BCH ecosystem]:

  1. No inciting violence or murder. Offenses will be outright deleted, users commiting them will be temp-banned for 90 days or more.

  2. No political discussion of any sort. Accidental offense may be moved by mods to other channels or outright deleted. Repeated offenders, that do this despite being warned not to (3 times rule), will be temporarily muted or banned for 3-7 days so they have time to think deeply on their improper behavior.

  3. No referal links; no spam, except if done as a part of some BCH development-related meme. Can be deleted on the spot. Repeated offenders, that do this despite being warned not to (3 times rule), will be temporarily muted or banned for 3-7 days so they have time to think deeply on their improper behavior.

  4. No directly attacking of other people or using ad-hominem. [Examples: “You are stupid”, “You are retarded”, “Fuck you”, “Your family must be retards”]. Only attacking the arguments of other people is allowed [Examples: “your argument is invalid”, “this is a stupid argument, no offense”].

Offenses will be outright deleted, users commiting them will be temp banned or muted for 7-30 days.

  1. No discussing of non-BCH coins, except with relation to BCH in some way. Accidental offense may be moved by mods to other channels or outright deleted. Repeated offenders, that do this despite being warned not to (3 times rule), will be temporarily muted or banned for 3-7 days so they have time to think deeply on their improper behavior.

  2. Only discussion of BCH development-related topics is allowed and soft-enforced. Offtopic chains longer than 5 posts will be moved to more appropriate channels or deleted in worst cases. Repeated offenders, that do this despite being warned not to (3 times rule), will be temporarily muted or banned for 3-7 days so they have time to think deeply on their improper behavior.

  3. High-effort, deep-thinking, open state of mind and “low noise”/“high signal” actions are suggested and softly enforced in BCH development channels. Users of these channels are expected to actually address and think on arguments of other people, not just keep repeating their point of view ad infinitum, creating circular discussion patterns.

If for some reason debaters cannot come to any kind of conclusion in message chains longer than ~30 posts and/or the discussion has become a circular discussion, the thread will be moved to a more appropriate channel (initially that will be offtopic channel, a specialized channel might be created in the future for this case).

For newly registered/unknown people who have no prior reputation in the BCH ecosystem:

  1. No inciting violence or murder. Offenses will be outright deleted, users commiting them will be insta-banned.

  2. No political discussion of any sort. Offenses will be outright deleted, users commiting them will be temp-banned for 7-14 days.

  3. No referal links; no spam, except if done as a part of some BCH development-related meme. Offenses will be outright deleted, users commiting them will be temp-banned for 7-14 days.

  4. No directly attacking of other people or using ad-hominem. Offenses will be outright deleted, users commiting them will be temp-banned for 14-90 days.

  5. No discussing of non-BCH coins, except with relation to BCH in some way. Offenses will be outright deleted, users commiting them will be temp-banned for 7-14 days.

  6. Only discussion of BCH development-related topics is allowed and soft-enforced. Offenses will be outright deleted, users commiting them will be initially warned and if they do not improve over time, might be temp-banned for 3-7 days later.

  7. High-effort, deep-thinking, open state of mind and “low noise”/“high signal” actions are suggested and softly enforced in BCH development channels. Threads with offenses will be moved to a more appropriate channel, users commiting them will be initially warned and if they do not improve over time, might be temp-banned for 3-7 days later.

For bots and AIs that pretend to be humans:

  1. Anything. Result: Deletion, Insta-ban.
2 Likes
#2

I think it would be prudent to have a system of escalating warnings / bans. If someone is just perpetually getting a 3 day ban, well maybe that teaches them a lesson the first time.

But the third time? Needs to be a month. Fifth time? Gone forever.

We cannot deal with the type of people that endlessly comes back like an NPC over and over and over with no change of behaviour, because it destroys the experience for everyone else. After enough chances, too bad so sad, start your own channel if your views are so important (this is logically consistent with this initiative itself being a response to apparently this kind of attitude).

2 Likes
#3

This makes lots of sense.

If a person is not learning and is repeatedly coming back and showing the same behavior, that means the person needs increased motivation and training to become better each time.

The secondary mod directive says to have relaxed and forgiving moderation, so I think it makes sense the first 2 bans are normal-timed (3 days or so), and the third ban will start ban time escalation algorithm.

Rule update in progress…

1 Like
#4

While you are more than free to follow this path, I am curious what is wrong with the written rules in place for many months. (For instance).

rules
rules1101×1219 177 KB

If I’m comparing your rules and the existing ones, I’m seeing mostly overlap. If there are differences in approach between these rules, I’m not seeing them.

What’s your take?

#5

Overlap?

  1. There are 3 rules in your quoted screenshot.

There is 7 rules in 2 variants here. Each rule describes something else, is unique.

  1. The reason why there is more rules is so that you can be more specific of what is allowed and what is not allowed.

You can’t have a sane discussion space with just 3 rules, because that creates ambiguity. The 3 rules are way too generic.

  1. There is also something called “mod conduct”, and not only rules? Have you missed it?

I am sorry, but your argument is invalid.

1 Like
#6

You have been a moderator on Reddit for years, there are no such “mod conduct” rules, and as far as I have been able to judge, you didn’t really need them. (granted, sometimes you co-moderators told you to chill)
So, in a new place where you are the moderator, why do you think it is needed to post “mod conduct” rules while in on reddit where you also moderated you didn’t need them?

As the top mod on reddit rBitcoinCash, I’d like to know, do you think we need to create mod conduct rules?

1 Like
#7

Because practically all existing TG channels are being run in an unsatisfactory way: where mods are gods and whatever they say or feel goes.

If a mod feels like you have broken a rule, then you have broken a rule.

When a mod has a bad day, he may “feel” like you broke a rule, while in reality you did not.

This is what stricter rules are for, and they work both ways. Mods should also have rules, because they are not gods. They are public servants, kind of.

We could. But there is no need, because somehow, on reddit the existing rules work and mods do not behave in unsatisfactory ways, at least in the subreddits I moderate.

So while it could be done, it does not need to be done, because what exists, just works. There is no problem to solve.

#8

To start, the premise of Shadow’s push is that the current teams of some of the most important communication platforms for BCH are somehow suffering from a god complex and by extension of that can not be trusted to act in the best interests of not only the community but BCH in general.

A few years ago I also wrote an opinion piece about moderation in BCH and how to evaluate if change is needed.

Of course there is always room for improvement. Not everyone will agree with everyone else as far as the best way to run a group but I am willing to argue that disagreement about the minutia of rules is not at all worth dividing the community’s focus and attention over. In general, common sense is basically enough for groups and most people have no problem behaving in a way that does not disrupt the group with needing to be told what is and is not OK.

Decentralization is great but people still need to communicate and coordinate. Having groups that people can easily find and where people can easily communicate is far better than 10 similar groups with a few people each. Shadow is advocating for several BCH groups to be replaced with groups HE controls.

The Groups in question and their staff:

BCH Channel
Mathieu (Owner)
Im_Uname
Fiendish
Monica
Remora (new)
Dustin (new)
Erik (new)
Me (Previous)

Price Chat
Im_Uname (Owner)
Jett
Me (Previous)

Dev Chat
Me (Owner)
Emergent Reasons
Damascene

If it is true that all of these people who are not only very well known in the community but some of the most import and hard working people are somehow not trustworthy or able to make rational choices about their own groups and need to be replaced, does not bode well for the community in general. The idea that all of the above people AND GROUPS should be replaced by a centralized owner is not only foolish but extremely dangerous. That does not even mention the challenge that BCH faces constantly of network effect. Attempting to replace established and working groups and teams when it affects thousands of end users should only be undertaken when there is a very real and very strong need to do so.

As (the current) owner of Dev chat I can tell you a bit about moderator action that has taken place there. In the entire history (since 2018) of the group a total of 70 accounts have been banned. The vast vast vast majority of them being bots auto banned by rose bot for not completing a captcha and the FEW humans (I count 4 offhand) that have been banned have been people like George Donnelly and Feliz who have a long history of causing trouble wherever they go and as such have been removed. To be clear Shadow is not (currently) muted or banned in dev chat. If that is what constitutes triggering a corrupted power crisis then it seems my standards are too high.

Shadow started this post by saying “due to popular demand”. As far as I know there have been no mass cries for change from community members. I could go into detail about why I think there is support for my actions to counter that statement but I think really it is neither here nor there.

I do not want to make any assumptions but as far as I know the desire to make sweeping changes to groups only came after Shadow was disciplined for his behavior in some of the above groups. The elephant in the room however is that probably this entire effort was triggered by me removing Shadow from price chat and then later BCH Channel due to his behavior that he was warned about publicly and privately more times than I care to count. As the previously most active mod across BCH groups for years now I think it is safe to say the mod crisis is not real. Shadow rightly or wrongly was removed from 2 groups by me (with the support of the owners of said groups) and despite appealing to the owners of said groups they decided to back me and uphold the bans. If it were just me acting unilaterally (as Shadow would be able to do without any kind of check if people move to his groups) then I may agree there is a problem. Shadow argues the creation of these new groups is so that people do not have to fear being banned unjustly by “insane mods”. However from a purely numerical point of view it is clear there is no ban madness going on. Probably over 90% of people have no issue falling afoul of the rules, and even if they do they are able to self correct and future warnings are not needed.

Division and the dilution of communication and network effect has a massive negative effect on the entire community and ecosystem. I stand by what I wrote on read.cash and agree that in the case of a corrupt group etc, forking it is a valid course of action to ensure survival. Attempting to divide the community because 1 individual was unable to follow the rules does not fall into that category and no one should take his perspective seriously.

.

3 Likes
#9

@CheapLightning

You seem to be mistaken here,

This thread was not created to make a drama but to discuss the development of changes of rules that govern BCH communities that are run by me.

I do not intend to get myself involved in any inter-personal drama in here.

Dramas should be handled on Telegram or Reddit, these places are better suited for it.

This thread is solely for the development of rules that I implemented, nothing else. As an Open Source project.

If you want to continue this drama, join me in the offtopic channel. Why there you ask? Because this is the only place (completely coincidentally run by me) where no posts will get censored or hidden.

I will disregard further messages concerning the drama.

PS. Obviously I also made a mistake by answering to @tom 's post, and I am guilty for that, I should have totally ignored it. Well, my mistake here, apologies.

#10

I think since this is supposed to be an OS project, I will also make a GitLab repo for it so people can make merge requests and the usual dev stuff.

Developing them in this manner is inconvenient.

#11

@ShadowOfHarbringer “This thread was not created to make a drama”

Your post begins with a bold claim: “It came to my attention that currently all Telegram and Session groups, except those run by myself, do not actually have any kind of proper written rules.”

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for establishing clear guidelines, this opening judgement invites drama by coming across as profoundly arrogant and self-aggrandising. It implies that only you possess the wisdom or capability to manage a “decent” community on any topic related to BCH, as if the rest of us are fumbling in chaos without your enlightened oversight.

But to lean in on the technical discussion and ruleset, taking your own starting point:

“Moderators are not almighty gods… Moderators are executors of written rules”

Can you please confirm that you are using the word moderator and owner as synonyms? If so, that means Telegram Group Owners are “Executors of written rules” correct? If so, in the spirit of what you are trying to create should there not be a clear process for the owner/mod removal in such groups for when the owner/mods are not executing the rules created here or the spirit of the rules as decided by the community within them?

This ensures that owners/moderators are not kings, and are volunteers to help execute the rules and ensure a fair, open, productive engagement.

If not, how do you propose modding the mods?

1 Like
#12

Project update:

Added more structurized and descriptive information in the initial post.

GitLab repo coming on weekend, but I need rest time on saturday, so sunday it is.

#13

Project update:

GitLab respository has been created:

I am adding the initial ruleset as PDFs (because text files not allowed):
mod_code_of_conduct.pdf (16.1 KB)
rules_offtopic_channel.pdf (16.9 KB)
rules_dev_channels.pdf (22.8 KB)

#14

That’s a simple question that is actually really revealing an underlying problem in SoH’s thinking.

The basic design of all communities is that ‘moderators’ inherently have more power than the average participant.
Any rules are supported by the power to act. Someone breaks the rules, another with more power mutes them for a couple of hours. For instance. Without any power to back up rules, the rule breaker just ignores them. Anyone that ever moderated lots of people knows this.

Drafting rules that people who already have the most power makes thus no sense. The community has no power to enforce those rules. Without enforcement the rules are irrelevant. They are just there to look good, a mental pat on the back to themselves.

I’m not convinced there is a substantial difference in rules between the current channels and the fork.

2 Likes
#15

This is a rule development topic.

Please kindly stop derailing it into political/interpersonal discussion, thank you.

I have the utmost respect for this platform, I treat it like actual “Research” platform, not a town square / woman’s restroom for gossiping and having “people dramas”.