Let us walk through the process shall we? The current proposed language is:
“Unacceptable Conduct: Vocal support of these subjects will not be tolerated within the guild: racism, sexism, discrimination, pedophilia or adults committing sexual acts with people under the legal age, rape, torture, dubious consent, forced seduction, snuff or necrophilia, and/or bestiality. Advocacy in real life for this behaviour is considered a violation of our code of conduct.”
Later it says:
“Actions: Actions may include warnings, temporary or permanent bans from any or all FWG spaces, and/or revocation of FWG membership. Specific actions taken are at the discretion of FWG admins, moderators, and officers, based on the judged severity of the behavior.”
So, if someone is accused of a code of conduct violation, it falls on the administrators, moderators, and officers to, collectively, judge the incident. The totality of this process is not presented here, however from the most extreme sanction, revocation of FWG membership, we have in the by laws:
"Removal of Members
Memberships may be revoked at any time, for good and sufficient cause, at the discretion of the president."
This is a pretty broad reaching power. But that is also under the current by-laws. The current amendment proposal presents such as a replacement for this section:
“Removal of Members
Memberships may be revoked at any time, for good and sufficient cause, by a majority vote of the current active officers.”
Meaning without the proposed changes to the by-laws, the president could potentially remove anyone, but if the by-laws are amended, the body of people who would have to support removal increases to that majority vote.
So let us say then that someone tells an off color joke and it gets reported. This joke doesn’t touch any of the specified code of conduct elements directly but is seen in poor taste by many. What would the likely outcome be from such an incident?
A lot of this would come down to how reasonable those who run the FWG are. Assuming they are reasonable people would suggest that any sanction would likely not go beyond a warning on a first offense, and perhaps no further down the road unless it amounts to a clear code of conduct violation.
So lets go there. Let us say someone pronounces that we should exterminate racial group X. This is a pretty clear pronouncement and encouragement of activities that are dangerous to numerous people. The FWG leadership, again assuming they are acting in a reasonable fashion, might go to the most extreme option of removal for a very clear case like this.
But you’re probably not worried about specifically of either end, but that muddy bit in the middle. So, let’s explore that a little. Our example person decides they want to talk in detail about how they think the notion of consent is overrated when it comes to sexual contact. One reading of their words has it being a joke or sarcasm. Another reading has it as advocating that people ignore consent when seeking sexual activities. What would the FWG leadership do in this case?
I can not divine perfectly, especially as this is an incomplete hypothetical, but they do have several options open to them. If they say view this as the joke, if maybe not a funny one, they could offer up a warning and make it clear to that person how they kind of screwed up. This allows the offender to maybe learn from this experience and try a vastly different approach to humor. They might see it as a clear violation of the code of conduct. So perhaps a full on ban, but I’d expect more likely peremenant removal from FWG spaces would be the outcome here minimum if this view is the determination of the moderating team. And what of right down the middle? That perhaps there’s a divide on the moderation team between it being not cool but clearly a joke and this is as bad as it sounds? Well the out come might be a temporary ban with a warning.
This of course is leaving out the variety of other scenarios like serial offenders, unusual circumstances, elaborate or convoluted contexts, ect. But all of these scenarios are also only statements by the individual as themselves and not in the context of created fiction. (Though in some cases there may be a gray zone.)
The short of the long then is: do you trust the FWG admins, moderators, and officers to make reasonable decisions about these things? Or if the by-laws change doesn’t pass, do you feel the same about the president specifically?
An organization is generally a trust system between members, some of whom may be officers or granted special powers by the group. If you trust the group generally, then it is reasonable to expect them to make reasonable decisions. If you don’t trust specific officers in the group, you can campaign against them and make well known the potential abuses of power, with the trust being in the general membership to correct a mistaken investiture of power. If you don’t trust the group at all, then the question is, why be a part of it at all?
And to a certain degree, having a code of conduct clause like this is meant to encourage that trust, not to undermine it. To show that the members of the group will be held to a minimum standard so that people who join the group know what kind of group this is, what their basic values are. It is then up to those members to encourage reasonable policing of the policies and not their exploitation by a minority seeking to control the group and/or its membership.
I hope my meandering words here are helpful for you or someone else.
Again though there was perhaps some confusion with the previously suggest wording that has since been corrected. Please reload the page if necessary to see that this addresses specifically conduct done in real life, and not stuff that is contained within the fiction some wish to create or have created.