| 4 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it's immaterial to the moderation topic, really | 14:53:13 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jan Tojnar: in practice it's unfortunately not that consistent, but that's a discussion that definitely veers away from the topic of this room | 14:53:44 |
 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:
- it's not strongly tied to any particular political or personal identities, it is entirely about how an individual chooses to engage with a community, and
- because it is about a choice of engagement, it is not immutable; as long as you think in behavioural choices rather than 'bad' identities, there is always a path towards resolution, towards understanding other people's experiences better and working out differences
| 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.org
Jon is proposing an alternative approach to CoC. Thoughts? RFC 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.com
Is it possible to evaluate effects based on mechanics rather than values? Are you talking about "if this then that" punishment? | 15:00:38 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
Is it possible to evaluate effects based on mechanics rather than values? not sure I understand what you mean with this. can you give an example? | 15:01:08 |
