 | RFC 98 Chat | 52 Members |
| Discussion on RFC 98 [Community Team] https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98 | 24 Servers |
| RFC 98 Chat | 52 Members |
| Discussion on RFC 98 [Community Team] https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98 | 24 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 4 Nov 2021 | ||
 tomberek | So…. where are we? Did we make any progress? | 14:54:09 |
 Jonas Chevalier | IMO this happened because most of the participants in favour of the RFC are LGBT-related. | 14:54:43 |
| tomberek | There is a similar thing with 111. | 14:55:11 |
| Jonas Chevalier | It's really unfortunate that we have camps like that | 14:55:36 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | also, I want to highlight one thing here: the reason I am talking about 'good faith' vs. 'bad faith' is two-fold:
| 14:56:06 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and while there are specific political identities and groups which are strongly driven by deliberate bad-faith behaviour, the topic of moderation can be discussed without focusing on those groups specifically | 14:56:49 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | so I would much, much prefer not to turn this into a left vs. right vs. whatever debate :) | 14:57:11 |
| Jonas Chevalier | One criteria I like to use is whenever a conversation is productive or not | 14:57:15 |
| tomberek | Jon is proposing an alternative approach to CoC. Thoughts? | 14:57:32 |
| Jonas Chevalier | It's subjective but also falls into "good faith" "bad faith" | 14:57:37 |
 jonringer | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.orgRFC 114 is an CoC. It just has very different wording | 14:57:57 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jonas Chevalier: I agree that that is a good metric to determine whether some kind of moderation or community management is needed at all in a specific situation, yes. actually determining the instigator(s) and/or points of conflict requires more than that, though | 14:58:44 |
| jonringer | And it focuses around behaviors of an individual, not politically charged wording like "social normals", "fascism", or "bigotry" | 14:58:45 |
| jonringer | * And it focuses around behaviors of an individual, not politically charged wording like "social norms", "fascism", or "bigotry" | 14:59:11 |
| tomberek | “Socially charged” might be better. | 14:59:31 |
| Jonas Chevalier | Is it possible to evaluate effects based on mechanics rather than values? | 15:00:09 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | err, I just realized I should've probably said this explicitly earlier: in my experience, almost any conflict situation in a community, no matter how much of a fight and how many people are involved, has one or two instigators - identifying them and removing them from the conversation (through a ban or otherwise) is almost always enough to turn a conversation productive again | 15:00:25 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | hence why I mentioned 'instigators' above | 15:00:35 |
| jonringer | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.comAre you talking about "if this then that" punishment? | 15:00:38 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.comnot sure I understand what you mean with this. can you give an example? | 15:01:08 |
| Jonas Chevalier | Not the punishment part, more the evaluation method | 15:01:09 |
| 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.townThe only clear case of this that I'm aware of was supersandro on the receiving end | 15:12:58 |