Published by the Commonwealth of Humanity
Date: May 4, 2026
* * *
COMMUNITY GOALS
The Commonwealth of Humanity intends to center its community building around the universal breadth of constructive and creative human endeavors.
But primarily, the Commonwealth recommends that our initial efforts center around discussion sessions, journalism and investigation, neighborhood outreach and mutual aid, education and continuous learning, amusement and entertainment, and sharing content.
We recommend coordinating through a Signal group chat with like-minded community members, and meeting every Saturday morning at a local library, park, or community center.
It might be a good idea to record or live stream meetings.
Communities should be a place where members meet up to build rapport, but also to seek conflict resolution, request mutual aid, share skills and resources, and organize collective action on matters affecting the group.
Conflict Resolution
When a member has a grievance against another, the following process is expected before the community is convened:
Phase 1 -- Direct Resolution
The two parties must first attempt to resolve the conflict between themselves. The Grievant party must have engaged in this attempt in good faith. Good faith means clearly stating the grievance, listening to the other person's side of things without interruption, and making a genuine effort to reach a restoration or agreement. The person seeking resolution should not refuse to listen, or involve a third party at this early stage, and should definitely not publicly discuss the grievance before this phase has concluded. It should be completely acceptable to audio record this conversation, so long as the recording is deleted if the conflict is resolved. This phase should be attempted as early as possible, nearest to the originating conflict event as possible.
Phase 2 -- Peer Mediation
If Phase 1 fails and the Grievant remains unsatisfied, two other community members (agreed upon by both parties where possible) are brought in. These mediators are responsible for gathering facts from both sides separately, documenting them clearly, and presenting a neutral summary to the community ahead of any formal session. Again, audio recording of this conversation is recommended, so long as the recording is deleted if the conflict is resolved.
Phase 3 -- Community Vote
The community hears presented evidence from both parties and votes on the matter. It is recommended to fully live stream this proceeding so that other communities can learn from example, or make recommendations for process improvement afterward.
Evidentiary Standards
Evidence presented must be firsthand, documented, or corroborated by a witness. Hearsay alone carries no weight. Screenshots, recordings, and written accounts are acceptable only if verifiable.
Critically: any existing power, wealth, or social status asymmetry between parties must be explicitly acknowledged during deliberation. The burden of proof is higher for the more powerful party. Where evidence is ambiguous or roughly equal, the community should default in favor of the less powerful member. Resources, social connections, and status must not be allowed to substitute for evidence or influence decisions of the jury/community.
Quorum
Each community is responsible for defining its own quorum threshold. It is recommended that communities establish this threshold by majority vote before it is needed, not during a conflict. A written record of the agreed quorum definition should be kept and made accessible to all members.
Suggested considerations when defining quorum: minimum percentage of total membership required to vote; whether absent members must be contacted and given a window to respond before a decision is finalized; and whether certain high-stakes decisions require a higher threshold than routine ones.
Community as Jury
Juries are considered to be the entire community. When the entire community cannot convene, absent members must be contacted and their vote obtained having had an opportunity to review the evidence and testimony of the two parties.
Jury decisions result in a binding outcome. Restoration of the Grievant is required. Restoration means, to the extent possible, returning the Grievant to the condition they were in before the harm occurred -- whether that takes the form of returned property, a public apology, correction of a false account, or other concrete remedy appropriate to the nature of the transgression.
Should a convicted accused member of the community continue to refuse to admit wrong-doing, deny wrong-doing despite the community decision, refuse restoration to the Grievant, or refuse to publicly apologize to the Grievant, then the convicted member is to be ostracized from the community. Appeal after decision is not an option at this point, unless new evidence is brought to the attention of the community for further consideration.
The only way the convicted accused party escapes ostracism at this point in the proceeding is by fully restoring the Grievant, admitting their transgression, and apologizing. This is only an option when the transgression is restorable.
However, some harms cannot be meaningfully restored. Where the harm cannot be meaningfully restored, ostracism stands as the only acceptable final outcome.
Retaining community membership is also only an option when the convicted accused party has not already been taken through this procedure and apologized once before.
Structure and Facilitation
There are no leaders in a Commonwealth community. There is no permanent hierarchy of any kind.
Meetings may be facilitated by a community member appointed by majority vote for that week only. Facilitators rotate weekly. The role of the facilitator is strictly logistical -- keeping meetings on track, ensuring all members seeking to voice their views have a turn, and moderating conflict resolution sessions. Facilitators hold no authority over decisions, votes, or community direction.
No member may serve as facilitator during a conflict resolution session in which they are a party.
Remaining Considerations
Meeting Disruption
If an individual or faction attempts to disrupt a weekly meeting, the response depends on the nature and severity of the disruption.
For immediate in-session disruption, the facilitator may call a snap vote to suspend or remove the disruptor for the remainder of that session only. A simple majority show of hands is sufficient. This authority belongs to the assembled community, not to the facilitator personally.
Repeat or coordinated disruption is a more serious matter and warrants the full conflict resolution process. In such cases, the community itself serves as the Grievant.
Coordinated bad-faith infiltration -- sometimes called "wrecking" in organizing history -- is the hardest case. Communities may wish to consider a cooling-off period before new members are eligible to vote or facilitate, or to treat coordinated disruption as grounds for an immediate community-wide membership vote, bypassing Phases 1 and 2 on the basis that the harm is already witnessed by the assembled community.
Each community should decide in advance whether and how membership may be revoked, and under what conditions a faster resolution track is warranted.
Open Question: Community Response to Serious Crime
This question has not been resolved by the Commonwealth and is intentionally left open for community discussion. It is raised here because it deserves honest deliberation before it becomes urgent.
The Tension
The Commonwealth condemns existing law enforcement institutions as a militant enforcement arm of a criminal state. At the same time, the community has no coercive power of its own. Ostracism is the strongest tool available. This creates a gap when a harm is serious enough that ostracism alone may be insufficient to protect members.
Questions for Community Discussion
1. Does the community take any official position on whether a member may contact law enforcement after suffering serious harm? Or is that decision left entirely to the individual?
2. Should the community ever act collectively to contact law enforcement -- for instance, to protect a member from ongoing violence? If so, under what conditions?
3. If a member contacts law enforcement in their personal capacity, does that affect their standing in the community?
4. What does the community owe a member who has been seriously harmed, beyond what the conflict resolution process can provide?
5. How does the community protect itself from being used as a shield by someone who has committed serious harm and wishes to avoid outside accountability?
6. Should the community maintain a documentation practice for serious incidents regardless of what the affected member chooses to do -- both to support the victim and to serve the Commonwealth's broader accountability mission?
Proposed Principles to Guide Discussion
Whatever position the community arrives at, the following principles are proposed as a starting point:
First, the safety and sovereign choices of the individual member who was harmed take precedence over the community's institutional position on law enforcement.
Second, the community will not pressure a harmed member either toward or away from contacting law enforcement. That pressure, in either direction, is itself a form of coercion.
Third, in cases of serious harm, the community should consider immediate ostracism of the accused without waiting for the full three-phase conflict resolution process, on the basis that the standard process was designed for restorable interpersonal conflict, not serious crime.
Fourth, the community's condemnation of state institutions does not extend to abandoning its own members in moments of serious danger.
A Note on Honesty
Any community that cannot name the limits of its own power is not being honest with its members. This community has real limits. Naming them is not a weakness -- it is a precondition for trust.