| 8 Mar 2024 |
 7c6f434c | You asked whether those hypothetical posts were hurtful. There would be people solemnly swearing those are hurtful. This is not what you meant though, but what you meant exactly is unclear | 20:45:57 |
 @jonringer:matrix.org | You said that his writings held hatred, so they were relevant to what you asked for earlier.
However, my original point in starting this discussion is that these personal beliefs SHOULDN'T matter unless they manifested themselves in a negative way in the Community. | 20:46:53 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | I don't want to fight your fight by your rules, then for you to change the rules of the fight. | 20:47:35 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
You said that his writings held hatred, so they were relevant to what you asked for earlier.
However, my original point in starting this discussion is that these personal beliefs SHOULDN'T matter unless they manifested themselves in a negative way in the Community. Which I agree to to some degree, except that in this case some of them did manifest themselves in a negative way in the community. | 20:47:49 |
| 7c6f434c | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
You asked for something, I told you where to look for it, you suddenly say "I don't care"
Make up your mind.
If his twitter is one hop further from the user profile than the website, then mentioning the Twitter posts does not answer the question of what were the bad things on the website | 20:48:22 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | Would you care to provide some examples? I'm sure there's something from the moderation decisions which would help with clarifying exact instances where his behavior was unacceptable. | 20:48:58 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @7c6f434c:nitro.chat
If his twitter is one hop further from the user profile than the website, then mentioning the Twitter posts does not answer the question of what were the bad things on the website They were literally linked to half an hour ago. There's other stuff on there defending KiwiFarms, and probably more if you have the strength to really read all of it. | 20:49:27 |
|  danielrf joined the room. | 20:50:31 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
Would you care to provide some examples? I'm sure there's something from the moderation decisions which would help with clarifying exact instances where his behavior was unacceptable. No, I do not have the emotional capacity to re-hash this again in detail and explaining it, I have already read too much of this stuff for today. | 20:50:42 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | And at a certain point, if reading it for yourself won't convince you, then I likely won't be able to change your mind either. | 20:51:09 |
| 7c6f434c | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
They were literally linked to half an hour ago. There's other stuff on there defending KiwiFarms, and probably more if you have the strength to really read all of it. I have read the current state of the specific page that was linked | 20:52:03 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Also I'm going now, doing something happier with my evening than trying to discuss transphobia on the internet 👋 | 20:52:23 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | This might also be a process issue. If people feel like they can be banned instantly for saying the wrong things, then it might be because it feels so sudden. If there was a 3 strike rule, or another style is to timeout people profusely. Both of these approaches help create this guardrail feeling where you know where you stand. | 20:53:10 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | This was never about transphobia. But separation of personal view from actions in a community. | 20:53:43 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | I will say, that hesitation earlier was both from having to respond to the fallout of the first post; as well as the consequence of potentially being banned if what I say was misinterpretted. | 20:55:35 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | Historically we have been afraid of intervening, and this let obvious situations linger for way too long. And when we started doing it, it's possible that we weren't super subtle about it. Mostly because of our lack of experience and that banning is the most obvious tool. And that created side-effects. | 20:57:00 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | * Historically we have been afraid of intervening, and this let obvious situations linger for way too long. And when we started doing it, it's possible that we weren't super subtle about it. Mostly because of our lack of experience and that banning is the most obvious tool. And that created side-effects. But I think the current team has learned a lot of things and it better now. | 20:57:21 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | It's not just for me, I could reference a dozen other contributors who have reached out to me saying that they share similar concerns. But I wont, because I don't want the community to be that divisive. I just want to contribute as a person who enjoys Nix.
Not someone who has to fall in line with some constantly evolving neo-liberal world perspective which misalignment results in a ban. | 20:58:02 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | Also this has worn on me as a contributor. Prior to Nov 2022 (RFC98), I averaged some 6k+ contributions a year to Nix/Nixpkgs. And that sharply fell off as I felt the Community didn't welcome me (whether correctly or incorrectly) | 20:59:39 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | yeah, hopefully we can address your concerns and get past that. | 21:02:31 |
 tomberek | "Contributor Covenant specifically states that behavior, actions, and communications outside the scope of the project cannot be considered violations of the code of conduct, unless the person in question is representing the project in an official capacity."
The problem is the disconnect between what we say we are going to do, and then what we do. srid did not bring his beliefs into scope, for years it was not an issue. It was only when others started pointing it out and digging into it and then attacking character that there was a negative response.
Was there (perhaps it was done in private and thus invisible to us) any condemnation of those who starting bringing in outside topics? Because it really looked like a few people instigating mob-like behavior using "look how immoral this person is" and then post-hoc justifying it by pointing at a less than enthusiastic response to being faced with a moderation action + complaining about it. | 21:04:17 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | Another idea I had was to hire a professional moderator to help teach us some techniques. We're just a bunch of geeks trying to do a job we don't know much about (no offence :)). I actually reached out to someone but it didn't pan out. If the moderation team is interested, I'm happy to try another time. | 21:14:21 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | Anyways, I think it's up to the moderation team to decide. I think we covered most of the topic now. Thanks a lot piegames for helping discuss this with us. | 21:16:49 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | People very rarely get banned on sight without warning, and especially not community members. Only very obvious Matrix trolls | 21:21:06 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | So if anything, this is a communication issue and not a process issue | 21:21:59 |
| tomberek | There is a perception that there is a process issue. More communication has resulted in reinforcing that perception. Please consider the possibility of there being a process issue as well. Or to address why that perception seems to persist. | 21:26:50 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | For posterity: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98#discussion_r743760397 | 21:29:55 |
 @ryantm:matrix.org | Srid did bring his beliefs into scope. He posted a direct link to a political screed on his Nix Discourse profile. | 21:36:18 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
"Contributor Covenant specifically states that behavior, actions, and communications outside the scope of the project cannot be considered violations of the code of conduct, unless the person in question is representing the project in an official capacity."
The problem is the disconnect between what we say we are going to do, and then what we do. srid did not bring his beliefs into scope, for years it was not an issue. It was only when others started pointing it out and digging into it and then attacking character that there was a negative response.
Was there (perhaps it was done in private and thus invisible to us) any condemnation of those who starting bringing in outside topics? Because it really looked like a few people instigating mob-like behavior using "look how immoral this person is" and then post-hoc justifying it by pointing at a less than enthusiastic response to being faced with a moderation action + complaining about it.
- AFAICT this quote is not from our Code of Conduct, but from the FAQ of the Contributor Covenant, which we adapted and we link to its FAQ. I agree that there is a dissent between the moderation practice and the quote from the FAQ, and that this should be resolved.
- We go out of our way to contact people first and talking to them before taking any moderation action. Would you describe this as "mob-like behavior" or "post-hoc justification"?
| 21:36:24 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
I realize I'm admin of the room, so just to be clear: /ignore raitobezarius: Could you please clarify this a bit? I see that you do have moderation rights in this channel, yet the /ignore command is a personal mute and I don't see any other action | 21:56:53 |
