| 4 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | like, the "house rules" at your local amateur soccer club serve the exact same purpose | 18:15:18 |
 jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
jonringer: social norms are a completely normal part of any kind of community management. I'm honestly not sure why you're seeing more in it than that Yes, and I'm defining the social norms in RFC 114. Not leaving it up to interpretation by an oligarchy. | 18:15:27 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | RFC 98 is, again, explicitly non-hierarchical. "oligarchy" is a very strange choice of words | 18:15:51 |
| jonringer |
noun: oligarchy; plural noun: oligarchies
a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
| 18:16:24 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | yes, it is a hierarchical structure | 18:16:34 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | RFC 98 explicitly seeks to avoid these | 18:16:39 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | now if your issue is that it has a hidden hierarchy in it, that'd certainly be a valid concern to raise and try to address | 18:16:46 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | but it makes no sense to dismiss a non-hierarchical RFC in its entirety on the basis that "I don't want a hierarchy" | 18:17:07 |
| jonringer | moderation team is an instance of oligarchy. Although, may have political connotation depending on reader | 18:17:55 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | no, it's not. for something to be an oligarchy, the control needs to be absolute | 18:18:15 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | at least for all practical purposes | 18:18:24 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | which is, again, a thing that only exists in hierarchical organizations | 18:18:34 |
| jonringer | No, it doesn't. Just need to project control | 18:18:39 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | the role of the moderation team in RFC 98 is to be stewards of the community, not controllers of it | 18:18:52 |
| jonringer | Within the nixos community. communication is paramount. The ability to remove someone's voice in the community is essentially control over them | 18:19:03 |
 Jonas Chevalier | I want to make clear that there are two different goals: "acceptance of LGBT", which I am very much in favor for, and this ^ ideology, which in my mind, is counter-productive to the first goal | 18:19:16 |
| jonringer | How do you blaggacao feels about being banned from all official platforms? | 18:19:17 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and some degree of technical 'control' is necessary to carry out that task, but that is very different from power, which is what you are really talking about | 18:19:20 |
| Jonas Chevalier | ^ this is back to an authoritarian view of the world | 18:20:04 |
| jonringer | Power can be represented any many forms. The ability to deny someone participation is a form of power (e.g. bans) | 18:20:06 |
| Jonas Chevalier | anyways, dinner time! | 18:20:15 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | jonringer: sure, it is. power that the community holds in RFC 98, not an oligarchy as you are implying. | 18:20:34 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I really feel like you're conflating the power and control aspects of this situation | 18:21:00 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * I really feel like you're conflating the power and control aspects of this proposal | 18:21:07 |
| jonringer | No, the community doesn't hold. Because the moderation team is only responsible for them selves. | 18:21:09 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
now if your issue is that it has a hidden hierarchy in it, that'd certainly be a valid concern to raise and try to address . | 18:21:21 |
| jonringer | I mean, there's already some heirachy with domen, graham, and eelco having admin rights to a lot of the platforms. They just rarely do any moderation because their efforts are else where. | 18:22:15 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | RFC 98 explicitly states that it is meant to provide a non-hierarchical moderation structure. this means that it should explicitly not result in a situation where there is a handful of people who are unaccountable to the community. if you believe that the proposal, as it stands, does do that... then that is a bug in the RFC that needs to be raised and addressed. | 18:22:21 |
