Moderating Plural Systems

Policy Work

While you should design your space's policies to protect minorities, you should take particular care to accommodate plural systems:

• Explicitly mention them in your list of protected groups, disallowing discrimination aimed at them. Additionally, disallow and moderate discrimination based on system origin, and keep an eye out for terms such as "endogenic" and "traumagenic".
• If you're able to find relevant accessibility tools, mention them and what they're intended for. Limit their use to accessibility purposes, but allow for users that are exploring themselves. Some plurality tools may also be useful for therians, folks exploring gender transition, and others with changing identities.
• If your policies don't already include one, consider adding a rule that requires your users to respect other individuals' accessibility needs.
• If possible, explain the basics of plurality, and provide links to resources about it. You can find a list of recommended resources on the resources page.
• Ideally, find space to explain how the tools work and what your users should expect from them. Explain what looks and functions differently, and how they can find out more information on them.

It is important to teach your users about plurality and how to treat plural systems with respect. Policy is one part of this work, but you'll need to spend time in your spaces, talking with plural systems and setting a good example.

Emphasise that your users should treat system members as separate entities if they decide to present as such. It may be useful to liken plural systems to physical buildings — or starships with multiple crew members that may be at the helm.

For more information on how to approach plural systems in general, see the plurality page.

Tooling

While accessibility tooling for plural systems is rare, it is always worth searching for it. The tools available to you will strongly depend on the platform you're using and how large the plural community is there.

In general:

• Pick the right tooling for your community. While it is always best to prioritise the comfort of any plural systems in your spaces, some tools can be a little jarring and hard to get used to at first. It is important to think about how much work it may be to integrate new tooling, especially if your community has been around for a while.
• Always prioritise tools designed specifically for plural systems over "suitable" tools that aren't. These tools will have useful features for plural systems that others won't, and your users will be less likely to use them inappropriately (e.g. for role-playing).
• Moderate how your users use, approach and comment on these tools. It is crucial you ensure plural systems in your spaces aren't afraid of judgement from other users for using these tools, and you will need to be vigilant about normalising their use.

For a list of recommended tools (and any relevant notes of caution), see the tools page.

Infractions

Moderating plural systems when things go wrong can be daunting, but it is less complicated than many people assume. Several workable approaches exist, depending on the needs of your community.

System Model

Under the system model, your moderation team should work under the idea of system accountability. This is the recommended model for most communities, for reasons we'll get into below.

System accountability means that you should hold plural systems accountable for the actions of their members. Essentially, you should log infractions against the system itself, while taking into account the nuances of the individual system and its members.

Downsides

This approach isn't ideal for several reasons:

• Plural systems with implicit hierarchies are rare; systems with explicit hierarchies even more so. Most systems don't have a chain of authority or care, and this approach sacrifices nuance to lower moderator burden.
• Plural systems are incredibly varied, and may need to deal with sudden changes, including the appearance of new headmates. This can make things unpredictable, and it is important to recognise when this causes problems to avoid over-moderating the system.
• System dynamics are complex, and system members are individuals with their own thoughts and wills. For this reason, many systems will understandably find it unfair when you punish them for another headmate's actions.

Suitability

This approach best matches communities with smaller staff teams and larger user bases, especially when you lack staff who have experience with plural systems, or when your moderation team regularly suffers from burn-out.

However, it is a hard model to implement fairly, especially from the viewpoint of most plural systems. If you choose this model, you must ensure that your staff team is ready to engage in good faith when issues arise, and that they understand plurality, and the related challenges users may face.

In particular, your staff should be ready to give plural systems the benefit of the doubt when appropriate. Moderating with empathy is always key, and it is often helpful to remain active as a user in your spaces, so you can get to know plural systems in your community and learn what to expect from them.

Headmate Model

Under the headmate model, your moderation team should work under the idea of individual headmate accountability. This approach requires a moderation team deeply familiar with plurality and moderation tooling that can keep track of individual headmates.

Headmate accountability means that you should hold individual headmates accountable for their actions, rather than treating plural systems as single units.

Downsides

This can be a challenging approach to implement for several reasons:

• You'll need dedicated tooling to properly action and keep track of infractions. It will need to integrate with any other plurality tooling your community uses, and it will need to be able to keep separate moderation logs for each headmate.
• Your moderation team must be innately familiar with plurality and what it means to be part of a plural system. Staff members that don't have a deep understanding of plurality will find it difficult to handle moderation under this model.
• This approach is a lot of work compared to the system model, and likely requires a large team of trained staff to successfully pull off in all but the smallest communities.
• You can't cover every eventuality with this approach — there will always be situations where moderating an entire system becomes necessary.

Suitability

This approach best matches small, plurality-focused communities with a dedicated and understanding staff team. It is challenging to implement at scale and requires an inordinate amount of work, especially when dealing with platforms that lack tooling for plural systems.

We've included this model because it is the most system-friendly approach, validating headmates' individuality and respecting their individual wills. Whether it is the most suitable option for your community is down to its structure, needs, and the energy available to your staff team.

We must again stress that this is a challenging model to implement, and you should pick the system model if you have any doubts about this one. "Perfect" is the enemy of "good", and it is important not to over-extend yourself or your team, especially if you lack experience with plural systems.