---

name: community-constitution
description: "Design community guidelines and an enforcement framework that makes moderation decisions consistent, defensible, and 80% faster."

/community-constitution

Generic rules ("be respectful, no spam") produce inconsistent moderation — and inconsistent moderation produces community revolt faster than bad actors do. When one moderator bans someone for what another lets slide, members don't blame the bad actor. They blame the platform. This skill forces you to articulate the actual values behind each rule — so moderators can apply judgment to edge cases, not just match keywords to a policy list.

Community Identity

• What is the primary activity this community exists to enable? (e.g., peer learning, deal flow, professional network, fan connection)
• Who is the target member, specifically? (not "professionals" — "early-career data scientists switching from academia")
• What does a great week in this community look like, concretely?
• What would make a high-value member quietly leave without saying why?

Behaviors to Explicitly Encourage — list 5-7:

For each behavior: name it, give a real example, and state why it serves the community's primary purpose.

• e.g., "Sharing failures and lessons learned — because that's what people can't get from documentation"
• e.g., "Tagging relevant members in threads rather than posting in #general — keeps expertise findable"

Behaviors to Explicitly Prohibit — list 5-7:

For each behavior: name it, give a real example, state the harm it causes, and state the principle behind the rule.

• e.g., "Unsolicited DMs pitching services — because it converts the community into a lead gen channel, which destroys trust"
• e.g., "Posting the same link in 3 channels — not because spam is bad in the abstract, but because it fragments conversation"

Enforcement Ladder

Define each step with specific triggers, not vague thresholds:

• Warning: what specific behavior, first occurrence, how it's delivered (private vs public)
• Temporary timeout: duration, trigger condition, what changes before they return
• Permanent ban: which behaviors skip the ladder entirely (zero-tolerance list)
• Appeals process: who reviews, what the criteria are, timeline

Edge Cases That Will Come Up — address each explicitly:

• A longtime valuable member violates a rule for the first time
• A borderline post — technically within rules but clearly against the spirit
• A moderator is personally involved or biased in a situation
• Two members in a conflict, both partially right
• A rule that clearly doesn't cover a new behavior the community is exhibiting

The Moderator Judgment Test

For each major rule, write one sentence that explains the principle — so a moderator facing an unlisted situation can ask "does this violate the principle?" rather than "does this match the rule?"

Rules

1. Every prohibition must name the harm it prevents, not just the behavior.
2. The enforcement ladder must have specific triggers — "repeated violations" is not specific.
3. Zero-tolerance behaviors must be listed explicitly. Implied zero-tolerance causes the most community conflict.
4. Edge cases are not optional. Every community moderates the same 5 edge cases. Address them now.
5. The constitution must be publishable to members — if you wouldn't show it, it's not a real policy.
6. Rules that can't be enforced consistently should not exist. Remove them or rewrite them.

The output of this skill is a moderation reference document — one that a new volunteer moderator can read in 20 minutes and use to make defensible calls on day one.