| 5 Nov 2021 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | I am sorry to derail this chat for something, but I'd like to discuss that GitHub does show me this comment although I appear to have blocked its author. | 23:10:00 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | This is a problem. The person has done nothing that would clearly allow us to ban them from the community. Nevertheless, I do not wish to interact with them at all. | 23:13:52 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | * This is a problem. The person has done nothing that would clearly allow us to ban them from the community. Nevertheless, I do not wish to interact with them at all. (This is probably not the post I blocked them for, but it was probably of the same style. In case you are unsure about them, click a few times to find their Twitter. Anyways, that's besides the point) | 23:15:35 |
 danielle | Being deliberately inflammatory is, probably, something that would lead to a conversation and then a potential ban in most good moderation systems | 23:27:44 |
 hexa | Uh … I'm ignoring the person as well. And the comments on the community and moderation team are their only contribution to the NixOS org this year. Very odd. | 23:28:45 |
| danielle | yeah I have them blocked everywhere for a reason. Mostly stemming from https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98#issuecomment-892403988 | 23:30:01 |
| danielle | but yeah - I think from what i've seen of this discussion so far, I think those kinds of cases are something we'd handle if someone who was an active member of the community started doing | 23:30:53 |
| danielle | not necessarily by banning, but by focusing on what we do here, and keeping that kind of behaviour away | 23:31:16 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
Being deliberately inflammatory is, probably, something that would lead to a conversation and then a potential ban in most good moderation systems I agree. Although there are cases where I'd block persons that don't deserve being blocked. My example above may be il-chosen. | 23:31:17 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
Being deliberately inflammatory is, probably, something that would lead to a conversation and then a potential ban in most good moderation systems * I agree. Although there are cases where I'd block persons that don't deserve being blocked. My example above may be il-chosen. A better example might be cross-community issues, where somebody is blocked for their actions on an unrelated repository. | 23:33:53 |
| danielle | Cross community stuff is trickier for sure. This is part of why I'm sometimes glad a lot of what I touch for work falls under the CNCF, where bans are not-quite-but-mostly-global and fortunately quite rare, bc folks tend to be explicitly inclusive | 23:35:19 |
| danielle | A lot that aren't tend to leave before they need to be pushed, because folks don't really tolerate asshattery | 23:35:40 |
| 6 Nov 2021 |
|  @test:boba.best joined the room. | 09:19:32 |
 @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk | i'm still not convinced about how the word "fascism" is used in the RFC, especially after Irenes comments about what the word means for them | 18:06:35 |
| @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk | admittedly i don't know why this bothers me so much. i think it's because it feels like a trojan horse, or something that can potentially be exploited by anyone with an agenda, since the definition is so vague | 18:07:23 |
 tomberek | It seems to have been acknowledged that the "socially charged" language in the RFC has caused a lot of the conflict. Then there was confusion if people were arguing about language or policy. | 18:12:55 |
| hexa | as a german I find it fascinating that the word "fascism" is supposed to have an unclear meaning. | 21:17:38 |
 Irenes | hexa, I would love to hear your thoughts on how to define it | 21:19:09 |
| Irenes | I honestly didn't realize it was subtle until I started trying to answer questions about it, I really thought it was quite obvious | 21:19:33 |
| Irenes | I regret how I answered that stuff, I think it obfuscated more than it helped. we'll certainly make sure that any mentions that are kept are as clear as we can manage. | 21:19:59 |
| hexa | basically Totalitarism | 21:21:15 |
| hexa |
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)[19]
| 21:21:16 |
| Irenes | makes sense. thanks. | 21:21:36 |
| hexa | but now that I went looking I found this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism | 21:22:02 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Fascinating. What the English Wikipedia says on it is described as "Neo-fascism" in the German article on the topic (and even then, the definition of the English article is more broad) | 21:22:16 |
| hexa | and it has >20 definitions, I didn't check how much they overlap | 21:22:18 |
| Irenes | anyway, from reading that it sounds like I was indeed incorrect in assuming the thread goes further back in history | 21:37:25 |
| hexa | * basically totalitarianism | 21:39:55 |
| Irenes | sure, yeah, but then you get into questions about is totalitarianism really the same thread as fascism, and so on | 21:41:19 |
| Irenes | I'm not sure it's in anyone's interests for the RFC to try to give historical analysis, neither author is a historian | 21:41:51 |
