| 24 Nov 2021 |
 tomberek |
Jonas attempted a bit of mediation and some levity. You've repeatedly stated that you think ryblade is taking an abusive stance. "Abuse" is mentioned in the RFC as something to be stopped. Does that warrant moderation action in this case? It seems to by the principle of "advocacy" from the values section. And very quickly we find ourselves again in not-ideal situation. | 15:51:33 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | tomberek: I would be very much in favour for banning ryblade (you/your) over the behaviour that they have demonstrated not just over the past few days, but also the behaviour when this room first started, as it has been abusive like this since the start | 15:53:45 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * tomberek: I would be very much in favour of banning ryblade (you/your) over the behaviour that they have demonstrated not just over the past few days, but also the behaviour when this room first started, as it has been abusive like this since the start | 15:53:51 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | they have clearly indicated that they do not intend to respect the needs and concerns of others | 15:54:01 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and do not seem to even share the fundamental goal of RFC 98, regardless of its implementation details | 15:54:21 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | so yes, this warrants moderation action, and is in fact a perfect example of how bad-faith actors can disrupt an otherwise-constructive discussion and make it unworkable | 15:54:58 |
| tomberek | Well......... this is exactly why people are concerned. It's too easy to go down this path. ^^^^^ | 15:55:14 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | tomberek: if comments that are just about two words removed from "I do not care about harm done to others" and a repeated demonstration of doing that harm are not sufficient reason to consider exclusion from the community to you, then please explain to me under what circumstances you wouldn't interpret moderation action as "too easy to go down this path"? | 15:56:51 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | like, there are a lot of good examples that one can think of to show how mismoderation can cause issues, but this is extremely not one of them | 15:57:29 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | so please consider carefully whether you want to use this case as a 'figurehead' to express concerns... | 15:59:07 |
| tomberek | You have stated before that you don't care about the harm/conflict/disruption done to the community if it means something like this RFC passes, for the greater good. | 16:02:03 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | no, I have not. | 16:03:34 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | in fact, if I'm remembering correctly (I'm not 100% sure that I am), you repeatedly asked me whether that was my stance and I repeatedly expressed that it was not and clarified my stance | 16:04:14 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | this also seems immaterial to the concern that I am raising | 16:05:19 |
| tomberek | While I can admit the connotation is negative, the intended meaning is accurate: it is possible to oppose a witch-hunt without endorsing witchcraft. | 16:06:20 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | namely: someone is repeatedly being disruptive, making constructive discussion unworkable, being decidedly aggressive to people, all the while seemingly having no intention of constructively contributing to the project that is RFC 98 | 16:06:22 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | this is a moderation problem. | 16:06:32 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | more specifically, this is precisely the kind of abusive behaviour that makes it impossible for other people to collaborate on something. | 16:09:13 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and again, if that is something you consider a representative example of "moderation gone wrong", then I am very curious to hear what you would consider a reasonable point to moderate things at | 16:20:00 |
 @jkarlson:kapsi.fi | I am not sure if anyone is claiming anything to be representative, while there has been no moderation yet? | 18:05:09 |
| @jkarlson:kapsi.fi | well apart from old style moderation | 18:05:24 |
| @jkarlson:kapsi.fi | I think it's reasonble to express opinions, obviously too much repetition would be flooding, I did not inspect backlog too much in this case, generally expressing once that "people have to stand for this in 4chan, so they have to do it in nixos too" or something similar would not be reasonably a thing that would cause at least outright ban | 18:08:02 |
| @jkarlson:kapsi.fi | (I don't share that opinion though) | 18:08:23 |
| tomberek | There seems to be broad agreement that the vwarren8 incident (from early Aug RFC98) was justly and properly moderated. I've not heard anyone opposing that moderation or advocating reversing it. If we can achieve agreement on some minimum, it is something to start with and build upon. Is that where the bar should be? Most likely not. But I'd rather ensure we have agreement on something and make progress than be forever locked into debate. The "all or nothing" nature of this specific RFC and the discussion surrounding it is part of the problem causing additional turmoil. | 18:08:36 |
| @jkarlson:kapsi.fi | I don't claim to have understood, what someone else has said though | 18:08:44 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | tomberek: this has already been addressed a number of times | 18:09:37 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | including in the RFC 98 thread on github | 18:10:44 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | You mean RFC 101? | 18:11:09 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | no, 98 | 18:11:17 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98#pullrequestreview-803228273 | 18:12:10 |
