| 4 Nov 2021 |
 Jonas Chevalier | Please give me some room for unrefined thoughts :) | 15:01:31 |
 tomberek | There are some heuristics, imperfect, but productive. Rust CoC mentions a few. Names that are not allowed, question mod behavior in private, etc. | 15:03:22 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I think a lot of uncertainty comes from applying morals, which are personal, to a specific situation.
What I noticed is that if I start evaluating conversations based on their effects instead, it becomes much less personal. For example I noticed that blaggacao messages take a lot of energy for me to parse. It's not personal but his personal communication style is difficult to me. Once I explained this to him, I think he understood and didn't take it personally.
Another advantage of that approach is that I didn't have to attribute any intent behind the issue. | 15:04:58 |
| Jonas Chevalier | * I think a lot of uncertainty comes from applying morals, which are personal, to a specific situation.
What I noticed is that if I start evaluating conversations based on their effects instead, it becomes much less personal. For example I noticed that blaggacao messages take a lot of energy for me to parse. It's not personal but his personal communication style is difficult to me. Once I explained this to him, I think he understood and didn't take it personally.
Another advantage of that approach is that I didn't have to attribute any intent behind the issue. In fact I quite believe that the intent behind the original messages were coming from a good place. | 15:07:27 |
| Jonas Chevalier | Just think about it :) | 15:10:18 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jonas Chevalier: right, I understand what you mean now. I think that is indeed the correct way to handle conflicts with someone who is acting in good faith; and this is usually also the first step that experienced moderators take in trying to resolve conflict in a community.
however, it usually falls down when dealing with bad actors in one specific place: acknowledging and accepting other people's experiences. for this to work, the 'offender' (for lack of a better term) needs to be willing to accept that the 'victim' is experiencing things in the way they say they are, and especially where bigotry is involved that usually doesn't happen - with the 'offender' instead choosing to trivialize the 'victim's experiences
| 15:10:23 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (or, in worse cases, applying something like DARVO, and claiming that the victim's experiences are made up purely to harm the offender) | 15:11:14 |
| Jonas Chevalier | the nice this is that we can extend that benefit of the doubt to everybody. then we can set boundaries for behaviours that are unproductive. | 15:12:06 |
 jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
(or, in worse cases, applying something like DARVO, and claiming that the victim's experiences are made up purely to harm the offender) The only clear case of this that I'm aware of was supersandro on the receiving end | 15:12:58 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I'm deliberately not making judgments about any specific cases here | 15:13:20 |
| jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
(or, in worse cases, applying something like DARVO, and claiming that the victim's experiences are made up purely to harm the offender) * The only clear case of this (that I'm aware of) was supersandro on the receiving end | 15:13:23 |
| Jonas Chevalier | let's start from a clean slate so we don't have to hold old grudges | 15:13:59 |
| Jonas Chevalier | * let's start from a clean slate so we don't have to hold (onto) old grudges | 15:14:10 |
 piegames | I think we can discuss this topic without either going into specific events that happened or explicitly forgetting about them. They are tangential to the current discussion, no less and no more | 15:15:21 |
 lourkeur (Nix OwO) | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
(or, in worse cases, applying something like DARVO, and claiming that the victim's experiences are made up purely to harm the offender) Your post assumes that you know who the real victim and the real offender is. How do you determine that in the real world if everyone claims to be the victim? | 15:15:35 |
| Jonas Chevalier | IMO there were a lot of problems in the past that could have been resolved with good moderation | 15:15:36 |
| jonringer | It's not meant as grudge, it's a way to fit that event in context of proposed changes. I'm getting really tired of how generalized of a "threat to newcomers feeling welcome" is becoming the reason for these changes, when I haven't seen much in how it will solve these issues in an objective manner | 15:15:43 |
| jonringer | I agree that a moderation could have stepped in, and instead of the discourse thread which blew up, we could have had a much more satisfactory resolution for everyone. | 15:16:51 |
| jonringer | * I agree that a moderation team could have stepped in, and instead of the discourse thread which blew up, we could have had a much more satisfactory resolution for everyone. | 15:17:00 |
| tomberek | The "instigator" comment still bothers me. | 15:17:25 |
| jonringer | But this has a lot of assumptions about moderation team being able to be effective, and trying to pursue arbitration before just banning people | 15:17:45 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @lourkeur:nixos.dev
Your post assumes that you know who the real victim and the real offender is. How do you determine that in the real world if everyone claims to be the victim? that's a reasonable question, and it's the point where subjective judgment of the situation by a moderator comes in. while different people approach this differently, and nobody is perfect, this is usually where experienced moderators try to suss out intent; by attempting constructive conflict resolution and looking at how the different parties involved respond to it. usually one of the parties is clearly invoking disruptive discussion techniques, though sometimes it's just a misunderstanding that can be resolved through mediation. there is no one-size-fits-all answer here. | 15:17:51 |
| Jonas Chevalier | What's important is to be focused on conflict resolution. Banning has taken up too much space in the conversation and should really be the exception. | 15:18:34 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (in fact, this exact question is the major reason why a legalistic approach to moderation - set hard-and-fast rules and exactly enforce them - doesn't work in practice) | 15:18:39 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
What's important is to be focused on conflict resolution. Banning has taken up too much space in the conversation and should really be the exception. I strongly agree with this, to be clear | 15:19:03 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I believe that so does the RFC, actually | 15:19:12 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | if I am not misremembering | 15:19:22 |
| Jonas Chevalier | the RFC is a lot of things | 15:19:29 |
| Jonas Chevalier | when we read it, we all see something different | 15:19:51 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * (in fact, this exact question is the major reason why a legalistic approach to moderation - set hard-and-fast rules and exactly enforce them - doesn't work in practice - there is no deterministic upfront way to answer this question) | 15:20:02 |
