| 2 May 2024 |
 shlevy | Hmm it looks like I don’t have the right to mark my thread as resolved, can a PR admin do so? | 20:30:09 |
 infinisil | Ping me if everything seems resolved with a suggestion! | 20:30:34 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @shlevy:matrix.org
Yes, that’s part of why I don’t think it’s necessary. The only reason I think it might be worth saying anyway is that there is an existing impression (justified or not) that some people have been leveraging these kinds of policies to get people moderated, and it’s easy enough to clarify that this policy is all under a presumption of good faith. I see the argument, but I also feel that it's very easy to get the wording wrong and basically make third-party deescalation as well as "setting personal boundaries" impossible | 20:30:37 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (as is generally the risk of hardcoded rules) | 20:31:09 |
| shlevy | Maybe modify the bad faith invitations to engage in debate to say or leverage the CoC against another participant? | 20:32:13 |
 nyanbinary | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
nyanbinary: assuming that's you posting on the CoC PR, please leave your comments attached to a line so it becomes a thread there mrow | 20:32:41 |
| nyanbinary | :3 | 20:32:42 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that would be an example of getting the wording wrong :) | 20:32:44 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | nyanbinary: thanks | 20:32:57 |
| shlevy | Anyway, the basic reason I don’t think this is necessary is that any agreement relies on good faith, and any arbitration process has to be amenable to evidence that one party has breached that | 20:33:21 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | wait | 20:33:22 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | nyanbinary: I'm not seeing the thread? | 20:33:26 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * that would be an example of getting the wording wrong :) (as it would allow wielding that rule against any mention of the CoC) | 20:34:09 |
| shlevy | So if the governance process coordinators are happy to leave out clarification here I think that’s legitimate | 20:34:27 |
| nyanbinary | 
Download image.png | 20:34:54 |
| nyanbinary | pending lol | 20:34:56 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I would be inclined to leaving it out, as it is already explained elsewhere | 20:35:09 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | nyanbinary: oh you need to commit the review | 20:35:21 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | big green button at the top right | 20:35:25 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it lets you create multiple threads and then commit them all at once, that is why | 20:35:41 |
| nyanbinary | oki there :3 | 20:36:00 |
 danielle | nyanbinary: i would strongly reccomend using the suggestion feature rather than just that comment (but to answer, yes, already would be included under other aspects of diversity) | 20:36:13 |
| danielle | * nyanbinary: i would strongly recommend using the suggestion feature rather than just that comment (but to answer, yes, already would be included under other aspects of diversity) | 20:36:18 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | nyanbinary: yep now I see it | 20:36:25 |
| nyanbinary | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
nyanbinary: i would strongly recommend using the suggestion feature rather than just that comment (but to answer, yes, already would be included under other aspects of diversity) Its a bit of a foreign concept to a lot of people so I feel like it would be safer to specifically call it out though. | 20:36:56 |
| danielle | (which is why i say to suggest the change so it can be applied 😅) | 20:37:28 |
| nyanbinary | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
(which is why i say to suggest the change so it can be applied 😅) Fair but I'm not exactly the best at wording things lol (idk where I would add it) | 20:39:50 |
| danielle | In reply to @niko:conduit.rs
Fair but I'm not exactly the best at wording things lol (idk where I would add it) add a bullet point that says - otherkin to the list? | 20:40:11 |
| nyanbinary | Oki :3 | 20:41:23 |
| danielle | (if you use the review suggestions button that is an easy +1) | 20:43:48 |
