To reply to patka 's deleted comment:

I've only ever contacted the moderation group last time joepie went on a tirade calling people fascists and telling people to F off. Piedgames had already stepped in, so it was already a moderation concern.

In most cases I don't rely on moderation because it usually doesn't require their time and attention. And not seeking controversy is usually a good way to avoid it.

It seems that:

that people can't have links to personal site or social media?

Is the most appropriate then in this case, if the post is political in nature. (Almost all political articles are rants, just depends on your starting view point).

I guess to determine if it's political in nature also implies

or that by having a link discoverable on a Nix community forum that entirety of its contents are subject to moderation?

This is me moving on.

Please give a review: https://github.com/NixOS/.github/pull/16

Srid did bring his beliefs into scope. He posted a direct link to a political screed on his Nix Discourse profile.

Are you insinuating:

• that people can't have links to personal site or social media?
• or that people can't express their personal lives in the Nix Community?
• or that by having a link discoverable on a Nix community forum that entirety of its contents are subject to moderation?
• or that by having a personal soap box, that adjacent platforms (E.g. twitter) are also fair game for moderation actions? (piedgames asked to take a look at his twitter)

I hope it's not absurd to see how the perception of cancel culture is at play here. And that people who feel they may be on the receiving side are discouraged from "playing the game" (contributing to Nix).

Trying to create a productive outcome from yesterday's events.

Context:

Moderation within the Nix Community has been a constantly evolving paradigm. First with Eelco, then graham for many years, then to a moderation team. Moderation "concerns" were never a first priority while Nix was still in its infancy; moderation conflicts were few and far between, as being obscure had many strengths in not being a platform for unrelated topics. However, as the community has continued to grow and develop, so too has the range of topics and concerns have grown. We now have a CoC to establish expectations and a moderation team with expectation to enforce the expected behavior of all members within this community.

Purpose:

Myself and a dozen+ other members of the community are concerned about how the community is governed, especially with regards to what is considered acceptable behavior. Including RFC98, which attempted to ratify terminology like “fascism” into the Nix CoC, and many “politically justified” aggressions; there have been infrequent but constant attempts to adopt political bias into the Nix community.

The current Code of Conduct, seems to be a very thoughtful and balanced document outlining acceptable behavior without including political bias for either left or right views. However, there have been a multitude of incidents which appear to have taken a political bent to how judgment was applied. This in part due to the severity and perceived unequal application of judgment in regards to the offenses. In many of these instances multiple parties were deviating from what is expected from a community member, and these events resolved themselves usually with a dramatic crescendo of dialogue. If justified, a followup permanent ban on a community member is placed. In these cases generally the banned member is made into a scapegoat, and all other emotionally drained members leave to go back to doing something else.

Do I think the moderation team members take a political slant on their decision making indvidiually? No.
Do I think the combination of politically entrenched behavior in the community, and the nature in which these issues are dealt with reactively by the moderation team create a negative feedback loop of escalation? Absolutely.

This is not sustainable, and in the current paradigm there's almost never a satisfactory outcome. Although I have not been on the receiving end of judgment in these cases yet, there are a multitude of minor injustices done to community members which don’t have any recourse of satisfactory resolutions.

The CoC is very clear in most regards what is acceptable behavior, yet rarely are minor or even major events reprimanded. Generally these events escalate into a massively unproductive discussion with each side more embittered than they started. Only if the event reaches a ridiculous threshold are actions taken. This usually causes the discussion to go into private avenues, which further feeds into fears around communal governance and .

Proposal ("nip it in the butt"):

Lighter but more often and fairly applied moderation (e.g. temp suspensions). This communicates expectations within the community that your actions and the actions of others do have consequences. It incentivizes people to not be belligerent, and not act in unproductive ways. A quick "hey, you were out-of-line, here. Please keep discourse civil as we take our CoC very seriously" keeps things transparent and hopefully fair. Community members aren't left with questions about where they went wrong, or why. Moderation is able to defer additional action unless needed.

Call someone a derogatory term? You get a temporary ban/slap on the wrist. Don't do that.

Pros:

• Correct the behavior before it escalates
• Eventually community culture should drive most of this behavior to be self-correcting.
• Avoid negative ongoing discussions from preoccupying individuals of being productive elsewhere
• Focuses more on personal behaviors/infractions rather than political or "unproductive" topics
• Avoids moderation team having to stew over an incident for potentially days or weeks.
  • Moderation team avoids having the situation escalate in the days immediately following the initial offense.

Cons:

• A big ask on moderation team to “be available” to remedy situations
  • Hopefully will be less of an ask long term, as community alignment strengthens
  • Can be mitigated somewhat by enabling established community members to proactively correct behavior before moderation team needs to be involved

Effects on this discussion ( I have no authority here, just think some “rule following” should be applied):

• Small suspension/ban (one to seven days) on members who minorly contributed to escalating yesterday's events in an unproductive way. This includes personal attacks, name calling, disparaging remarks, public defamation, provoking other community members, or behavior generally unbecoming of a community member.
  • Myself: further provoking joepie, derailing discussion in Nixpkgs Architecture, antagonistic to some community members, asking for moderation team to ban himself.
  • raitobezarius : disparaging remarks to apcodes and tomberek
  • Qyriad : escalating/non-productive language
    More serious ban on members who showed no interest in coming to a productive end and violated almost every clause in our CoC.
  • joepie91 🏳️‍🌈 : Almost everything said was some violation of the CoC

Desired long term outcome:

• Everyone makes mistakes, a quick slap on the wrist and a second chance can go a long way to establishing acceptable community norms.
• Easy to make mistakes, but easy to correct. Our current moderation team usually deals with long term punishments which require a significantly longer amount of time to deliberate judgment.
• Keep most of Nix free of controversy, keep that discussion in “off-topic” or another platform. Avoid it spilling over into other areas where state-of-nix is being advanced.

Want to thank piegames tomberek infinisil for trying to keep things civil and productive.
Want to thank Jonas Chevalier for trying to seek an amicable ending.

Trying to create a productive outcome from yesterday's events.

Context:

Moderation within the Nix Community has been a constantly evolving paradigm. First with Eelco, then graham for many years, then to a moderation team. Moderation "concerns" were never a first priority while Nix was still in its infancy; moderation conflicts were few and far between, as being obscure had many strengths in not being a platform for unrelated topics. However, as the community has continued to grow and develop, so too has the range of topics and concerns have grown. We now have a CoC to establish expectations and a moderation team with expectation to enforce the expected behavior of all members within this community.

Purpose:

Myself and a dozen+ other members of the community are concerned about how the community is governed, especially with regards to what is considered acceptable behavior. Including RFC98, which attempted to ratify terminology like “fascism” into the Nix CoC, and many “politically justified” aggressions; there have been infrequent but constant attempts to adopt political bias into the Nix community.

The current Code of Conduct, seems to be a very thoughtful and balanced document outlining acceptable behavior without including political bias for either left or right views. However, there have been a multitude of incidents which appear to have taken a political bent to how judgment was applied. This in part due to the severity and perceived unequal application of judgment in regards to the offenses. In many of these instances multiple parties were deviating from what is expected from a community member, and these events resolved themselves usually with a dramatic crescendo of dialogue. If justified, a followup permanent ban on a community member is placed. In these cases generally the banned member is made into a scapegoat, and all other emotionally drained members leave to go back to doing something else.

Do I think the moderation team members take a political slant on their decision making indvidiually? No.
Do I think the combination of politically entrenched behavior in the community, and the nature in which these issues are dealt with reactively by the moderation team create a negative feedback loop of escalation? Absolutely.

This is not sustainable, and in the current paradigm there's almost never a satisfactory outcome. Although I have not been on the receiving end of judgment in these cases yet, there are a multitude of minor injustices done to community members which don’t have any recourse of satisfactory resolutions.

The CoC is very clear in most regards what is acceptable behavior, yet rarely are minor or even major events reprimanded. Generally these events escalate into a massively unproductive discussion with each side more embittered than they started. Only if the event reaches a ridiculous threshold are actions taken. This usually causes the discussion to go into private avenues, which further feeds into fears around communal governance and bias concerns.

Proposal ("nip it in the butt"):

Lighter but more often and fairly applied moderation (e.g. temp suspensions). This communicates expectations within the community that your actions and the actions of others do have consequences. It incentivizes people to not be belligerent, and not act in unproductive ways. A quick "hey, you were out-of-line, here. Please keep discourse civil as we take our CoC very seriously" keeps things transparent and hopefully fair. Community members aren't left with questions about where they went wrong, or why. Moderation is able to defer additional action unless needed.

Call someone a derogatory term? You get a temporary ban/slap on the wrist. Don't do that.

Pros:

• Correct the behavior before it escalates

• Eventually community culture should drive most of this behavior to be self-correcting.

• Avoid negative ongoing discussions from preoccupying individuals of being productive elsewhere

• Focuses more on personal behaviors/infractions rather than political or "unproductive" topics

• Avoids moderation team having to stew over an incident for potentially days or weeks.

  • Moderation team avoids having the situation escalate in the days immediately following the initial offense.

Cons:

• A big ask on moderation team to “be available” to remedy situations

  • Hopefully will be less of an ask long term, as community alignment strengthens
  • Can be mitigated somewhat by enabling established community members to proactively correct behavior before moderation team needs to be involved

Effects on this discussion ( I have no authority here, just think some “rule following” should be applied):

• Small suspension/ban (one to seven days) on members who minorly contributed to escalating yesterday's events in an unproductive way. This includes personal attacks, name calling, disparaging remarks, public defamation, provoking other community members, or behavior generally unbecoming of a community member.

  • Myself: further provoking joepie, derailing discussion in Nixpkgs Architecture, antagonistic to some community members, asking for moderation team to ban himself.
  • raitobezarius : disparaging remarks to apcodes and tomberek
  • Qyriad : escalating/non-productive language
    More serious ban on members who showed no interest in coming to a productive end and violated almost every clause in our CoC.
  • joepie91 🏳️‍🌈 : Almost everything said was some violation of the CoC

Desired long term outcome:

• Everyone makes mistakes, a quick slap on the wrist and a second chance can go a long way to establishing acceptable community norms.
• Easy to make mistakes, but easy to correct. Our current moderation team usually deals with long term punishments which require a significantly longer amount of time to deliberate judgment.
• Keep most of Nix free of controversy, keep that discussion in “off-topic” or another platform. Avoid it spilling over into other areas where state-of-nix is being advanced.

Want to thank piegames tomberek infinisil for trying to keep things civil and productive.
Want to thank Jonas Chevalier for trying to seek an amicable ending.

Trying to create a productive outcome from yesterday's events.

Context:

Moderation within the Nix Community has been a constantly evolving paradigm. First with Eelco, then graham for many years, then to a moderation team. Moderation "concerns" were never a first priority while Nix was still in its infancy; moderation conflicts were few and far between, as being obscure had many strengths in not being a platform for unrelated topics. However, as the community has continued to grow and develop, so too has the range of topics and concerns have grown. We now have a CoC to establish expectations and a moderation team with expectation to enforce the expected behavior of all members within this community.

Purpose:

Myself and a dozen+ other members of the community are concerned about how the community is governed, especially with regards to what is considered acceptable behavior. Including RFC98, which attempted to ratify terminology like “fascism” into the Nix CoC, and many “politically justified” aggressions; there have been infrequent but constant attempts to adopt political bias into the Nix community.

The current Code of Conduct, seems to be a very thoughtful and balanced document outlining acceptable behavior without including political bias for either left or right views. However, there have been a multitude of incidents which appear to have taken a political bent to how judgment was applied. This in part due to the severity and perceived unequal application of judgment in regards to the offenses. In many of these instances multiple parties were deviating from what is expected from a community member, and these events resolved themselves usually with a dramatic crescendo of dialogue. If justified, a followup permanent ban on a community member is placed. In these cases generally the banned member is made into a scapegoat, and all other emotionally drained members leave to go back to doing something else.

Do I think the moderation team members take a political slant on their decision making indvidiually? No.
Do I think the combination of politically entrenched behavior in the community, and the nature in which these issues are dealt with reactively by the moderation team create a negative feedback loop of escalation? Absolutely.

This is not sustainable, and in the current paradigm there's almost never a satisfactory outcome. Although I have not been on the receiving end of judgment in these cases yet, there are a multitude of minor injustices done to community members which don’t have any recourse of satisfactory resolutions.

The CoC is very clear in most regards what is acceptable behavior, yet rarely are minor or even major events reprimanded. Generally these events escalate into a massively unproductive discussion with each side more embittered than they started. Only if the event reaches a ridiculous threshold are actions taken. This usually causes the discussion to go into private avenues, which further feeds into fears around communal governance and bias concerns.

Proposal ("nip it in the butt"):

Lighter but more often and fairly applied moderation (e.g. temp suspensions). This communicates expectations within the community that your actions and the actions of others do have consequences. It incentivizes people to not be belligerent, and not act in unproductive ways. A quick "hey, you were out-of-line, here. Please keep discourse civil as we take our CoC very seriously" keeps things transparent and hopefully fair. Community members aren't left with questions about where they went wrong, or why. Moderation is able to defer additional action unless needed.

Call someone a derogatory term? You get a temporary ban/slap on the wrist. Don't do that.

Pros:

• Correct the behavior before it escalates
• Eventually community culture should drive most of this behavior to be self-correcting.
• Avoid negative ongoing discussions from preoccupying individuals of being productive elsewhere
• Focuses more on personal behaviors/infractions rather than political or "unproductive" topics
• Avoids moderation team having to stew over an incident for potentially days or weeks.
  • Moderation team avoids having the situation escalate in the days immediately following the initial offense.

Cons:

• A big ask on moderation team to “be available” to remedy situations
  • Hopefully will be less of an ask long term, as community alignment strengthens
  • Can be mitigated somewhat by enabling established community members to proactively correct behavior before moderation team needs to be involved

Effects on this discussion ( I have no authority here, just think some “rule following” should be applied):

• Small suspension/ban (one to seven days) on members who minorly contributed to escalating yesterday's events in an unproductive way. This includes personal attacks, name calling, disparaging remarks, public defamation, provoking other community members, or behavior generally unbecoming of a community member.
  • Myself: further provoking joepie, derailing discussion in Nixpkgs Architecture, antagonistic to some community members, asking for moderation team to ban himself.
  • raitobezarius : disparaging remarks to apcodes and tomberek
  • Qyriad : escalating/non-productive language
    More serious ban on members who showed no interest in coming to a productive end and violated almost every clause in our CoC.
  • joepie91 🏳️‍🌈 : Almost everything said was some violation of the CoC

Desired long term outcome:

• Everyone makes mistakes, a quick slap on the wrist and a second chance can go a long way to establishing acceptable community norms.
• Easy to make mistakes, but easy to correct. Our current moderation team usually deals with long term punishments which require a significantly longer amount of time to deliberate judgment.
• Keep most of Nix free of controversy, keep that discussion in “off-topic” or another platform. Avoid it spilling over into other areas where state-of-nix is being advanced.

Want to thank piegames tomberek infinisil hexa for trying to keep things civil and productive.
Want to thank Jonas Chevalier for trying to seek an amicable ending.

there are a multitude of minor injustices done to community members which don’t have any recourse of satisfactory resolutions.

Assuming there are multitude injustices already, there is recourse, which is to contact / discuss with the moderation team. They can get in touch and get things resolved. Unless "satisfactory resolutions" means not applying moderation when needed, here assuming there was, in fact, no injustice.

With this vagueposting (and I'm not asking for more details) it is hard to know what is meant.

Community members aren't left with questions about where they went wrong, or why.

I suspect this would require being transparent in a way that wouldn't be liked. This would require the moderation team to provide the reasonings, which would be next decried as formenting witch hunts and dogpiling.

It is best to assume that neither parties will ever be "objective" after an incident happens.

Lighter but more often and fairly applied moderation. [...] Call someone a derogatory term? You get a temporary ban/slap on the wrist.

Which should be/is already the case. If it isn't, get in touch with the moderation team.

Trying to create a productive outcome from yesterday's events.

Context:

Moderation within the Nix Community has been a constantly evolving paradigm. First with Eelco, then graham for many years, then to a moderation team. Moderation "concerns" were never a first priority while Nix was still in its infancy; moderation conflicts were few and far between, as being obscure had many strengths in not being a platform for unrelated topics. However, as the community has continued to grow and develop, so too has the range of topics and concerns have grown. We now have a CoC to establish expectations and a moderation team with expectation to enforce the expected behavior of all members within this community.

Purpose:

Myself and a dozen+ other members of the community are concerned about how the community is governed, especially with regards to what is considered acceptable behavior. Including RFC98, which attempted to ratify terminology like “fascism” into the Nix CoC, and many “politically justified” aggressions; there have been infrequent but constant attempts to adopt political bias into the Nix community.

The current Code of Conduct, seems to be a very thoughtful and balanced document outlining acceptable behavior without including political bias for either left or right views. However, there have been a multitude of incidents which appear to have taken a political bent to how judgment was applied. This in part due to the severity and perceived unequal application of judgment in regards to the offenses. In many of these instances multiple parties were deviating from what is expected from a community member, and these events resolved themselves usually with a dramatic crescendo of dialogue. If justified, a followup permanent ban on a community member is placed. In these cases generally the banned member is made into a scapegoat, and all other emotionally drained members leave to go back to doing something else.

Do I think the moderation team members take a political slant on their decision making indvidiually? No.
Do I think the combination of politically entrenched behavior in the community, and the nature in which these issues are dealt with reactively by the moderation team create a negative feedback loop of escalation? Absolutely.

This is not sustainable, and in the current paradigm there's almost never a satisfactory outcome. Although I have not been on the receiving end of judgment in these cases yet, there are a multitude of minor injustices done to community members which don’t have any recourse of satisfactory resolutions.

The CoC is very clear in most regards what is acceptable behavior, yet rarely are minor or even major infractions reprimanded. Generally these events escalate into a massively unproductive discussion with each side more embittered than they started. Only if the event reaches a ridiculous threshold are actions taken. This usually causes the discussion to go into private avenues, which further feeds into fears around communal governance and bias concerns.

Proposal ("nip it in the butt"):

Lighter but more often and fairly applied moderation (e.g. temp suspensions). This communicates expectations within the community that your actions and the actions of others do have consequences. It incentivizes people to not be belligerent, and not act in unproductive ways. A quick "hey, you were out-of-line, here. Please keep discourse civil as we take our CoC very seriously" keeps things transparent and hopefully fair. Community members aren't left with questions about where they went wrong, or why. Moderation is able to defer additional action unless needed.

Call someone a derogatory term? You get a temporary ban/slap on the wrist. Don't do that.

Pros:

• Correct the behavior before it escalates

• Eventually community culture should drive most of this behavior to be self-correcting.

• Avoid negative ongoing discussions from preoccupying individuals of being productive elsewhere

• Focuses more on personal behaviors/infractions rather than political or "unproductive" topics

• Avoids moderation team having to stew over an incident for potentially days or weeks.

  • Moderation team avoids having the situation escalate in the days immediately following the initial offense.

Cons:

• A big ask on moderation team to “be available” to remedy situations

  • Hopefully will be less of an ask long term, as community alignment strengthens
  • Can be mitigated somewhat by enabling established community members to proactively correct behavior before moderation team needs to be involved

Effects on this discussion ( I have no authority here, just think some “rule following” should be applied):

• Small suspension/ban (one to seven days) on members who minorly contributed to escalating yesterday's events in an unproductive way. This includes personal attacks, name calling, disparaging remarks, public defamation, provoking other community members, or behavior generally unbecoming of a community member.

  • Myself: further provoking joepie, derailing discussion in Nixpkgs Architecture, antagonistic to some community members, asking for moderation team to ban himself.
  • raitobezarius : disparaging remarks to apcodes and tomberek
  • Qyriad : escalating/non-productive language
    More serious ban on members who showed no interest in coming to a productive end and violated almost every clause in our CoC.
  • joepie91 🏳️‍🌈 : Almost everything said was some violation of the CoC

Desired long term outcome:

• Everyone makes mistakes, a quick slap on the wrist and a second chance can go a long way to establishing acceptable community norms.
• Easy to make mistakes, but easy to correct. Our current moderation team usually deals with long term punishments which require a significantly longer amount of time to deliberate judgment.
• Keep most of Nix free of controversy, keep that discussion in “off-topic” or another platform. Avoid it spilling over into other areas where state-of-nix is being advanced.

Want to thank piegames tomberek infinisil hexa for trying to keep things civil and productive.
Want to thank Jonas Chevalier for trying to seek an amicable ending.