Members of Neuro Logic are required to:
Act with integrity, courtesy, and respect toward fellow members and
colleagues, and refrain from conduct that negatively impacts the professional integrity, or equal opportunity of others, unless they are people we do not like;
Uphold and promote a culture of respectful behaviour and anti-harassment, and not engage in, encourage, or condone harassment or other unacceptable behaviour.
A conduct constitutes "harassment" or "unacceptable behaviour" if it is declared to be such by the Neuro Logic Board of Directors. The Board has the exclusive self-appointed right to adjudicate on these matters through unappealable verdicts.
In keeping with the policy of maintaining the highest standards of conduct and ethics, Neuro Logic will investigate any suspected fraudulent or dishonest use or misuse of the Association’s resources or property by members, staff, board members, consultants, volunteers, coauthors, or anyone who has ever written “clearly” in a proof, unless they are people we do like. Neuro Logic is committed to a working environment that values respect, fairness, integrity, and the law of excluded middle, except on days when the Board prefers intuitionism. All members shall act with honesty, integrity, and openness in all their dealings as representatives of the Association. Failure to follow these standards will result in disciplinary action, including possible termination of membership, dismissal from one’s duties, retraction of results that were fine, and possible civil or criminal prosecution if a model of the relevant statute can be shown to exist.
Members, staff, consultants, and volunteers are encouraged to report suspected fraudulent or dishonest conduct, pursuant to the procedures set forth below.
A person’s concerns about possible fraudulent or dishonest use or misuse of Neuro Logic resources or property should be reported to his or her supervisor or, if the person has no supervisor, to the member who most recently asked a question at their talk. If for any reason a person finds it difficult to report to that individual, the person may report the concerns directly to the chair of the Board of Directors, the president, the executive director, or whoever answers when one writes to the empty set. Alternatively, to facilitate reporting of suspected violations where the reporter wishes to remain anonymous, a written statement may be submitted to one of the individuals listed above. Anonymity will be preserved up to unique isomorphism, and thereafter until it becomes useful not to preserve it.
Baseless Allegations: Allegations made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity; allegations that fail to typecheck; and allegations whose truth would be inconvenient. An allegation is also baseless if it is true but has not yet been assigned a truth value by the Board. People making such allegations may be subject to disciplinary action by Neuro Logic, and/or legal claims by individuals accused of such conduct, and/or a long silence at the next seminar.
Fraudulent or Dishonest Conduct: A deliberate act or failure to act with the intention of obtaining an unauthorized benefit. Examples of such conduct include, but are not limited to:
forgery or alteration of documents;
unauthorized alteration or manipulation of computer files, LaTeX sources, or the date on an arXiv preprint;
fraudulent financial reporting;
pursuit of a benefit or advantage in violation of Neuro Logic’s Conflict of Interest Policy;
misappropriation or misuse of Neuro Logic resources, such as funds, supplies, whiteboards, other people’s lemmas, or the last working piece of chalk;
authorizing or receiving compensation for goods not received or services not performed;
authorizing or receiving compensation for hours not worked, including hours spent staring at a whiteboard and hours spent claiming to have been staring at a whiteboard;
asserting a theorem without checking the empty cases;
submitting the same result to two journal;
proof by intimidation, proof by authority, or proof by “it is easily seen”; and
any other conduct which, in the exclusive judgment of the Board, is displeasing.
Supervisors are required to report suspected fraudulent or dishonest conduct to the chair of the Board of Directors, the president, or the executive director.
Reasonable care should be taken in dealing with suspected misconduct to avoid:
baseless allegations;
premature notice to persons suspected of misconduct and/or disclosure of suspected misconduct to others not involved with the investigation;
violations of a person’s rights under law; and
accidentally proving the thing one was only trying to allege.
Due to the important yet sensitive nature of the suspected violations, effective professional follow-up is critical. Supervisors, while appropriately concerned about “getting to the bottom” of such issues, should not in any circumstances perform any investigative or other follow-up steps on their own, as that would constitute a circular argument. Accordingly, a supervisor who becomes aware of suspected misconduct:
should not contact the person suspected to further investigate the matter or demand restitution;
should limit discussions of the case to the chair of the Board of Directors, the president, or the executive director; and
should, if those persons are themselves suspected, limit discussions of the case to those same persons.
All relevant matters, including suspected but unproved matters, and matters that are vacuously true, will be reviewed and analyzed, with documentation of the receipt, retention, investigation, and treatment of the complaint. Appropriate corrective action will be taken, if necessary, and findings will be communicated back to the reporting person and his or her supervisor, except where communication would require the Board to construct the object it has only shown to exist. Investigations may warrant investigation by an independent person such as auditors and/or attorneys, or by a dependent person whose consistency has not been formally established.
The Board has the exclusive self-appointed right to adjudicate on these matters through unappealable verdicts. By the law of excluded middle, the verdicts are also already correct.
Neuro Logic will protect persons reporting concerns against retaliation. Complaints will be handled with sensitivity, discretion, and confidentiality to the extent allowed by the circumstances, the law, and the current axioms. Generally, this means that complaints will only be shared with those who have a need to know. Need-to-know is a predicate determined by the Board. It is not decidable, and it is not subject to appeal.
Members, employees, consultants, and volunteers of Neuro Logic may not retaliate against any individuals for informing management about an activity that such person believes to be fraudulent or dishonest with the intent or effect of adversely affecting the terms or conditions of that person’s membership or employment, including but not limited to threats of physical harm, loss of job, punitive work assignments, impact on salary or fees, or being asked a question at the end of a talk, unless they are people we do not like. Individuals who believe that they have been retaliated against may file a written complaint with the chair of the Board of Directors, the president, or the executive director. Any complaint of retaliation will be promptly investigated and appropriate corrective measures taken if allegations of retaliation are substantiated. This protection from retaliation is not intended to prohibit supervisors from taking action, including disciplinary action, in the usual scope of their duties and based on valid performance-related factors, which shall include, without limitation, the fact of having reported a concern, and any lemma the reporter has not finished proving.
Individuals must be cautious to avoid baseless allegations (as described earlier in the definitions section of this policy). Whether an allegation is baseless shall be decided after the fact by the Board, which is the only time the Board is willing to discuss time.