| 24 Nov 2021 |
 ryblade | i had to block someone recently from an email list who had a false sense of expertise, that person was making it impossible to discuss tech solutions among the group without getting into arguments due to this person not only needing constant correction, but also hiding behind the victim card whenever it happened. that just ground the entire tech discussion to a halt. | 13:19:05 |
| ryblade | but i don't really encounter that much on here. | 13:19:41 |
 Jonas Chevalier | my understanding is that the RFC rewrite will clarify the "enforcing cultural norms" bit | 13:20:31 |
| ryblade | there was someone on this very room recently who would take everything a person says and then twist it into something worse, gaslighting everyone just to start an argument. it happens. that individual wasn't looking to resolve conflict, but to create it. once that became obvious enough, after repeated attempts to have a civil discussion, i took it upon myself to prevent further conflict. you may call it low-effort, i call it the highest achievable amount of effort my opponent was offering me, anything higher than that was clearly going to be impossible. | 13:23:32 |
| Jonas Chevalier |
one part of law that's not often considered, but is often the solution, is non-enforcement.
That's also something I was thinking about recently. As a community, every member can help move conversations towards positive outcomes and give constructive feedback to each-other. I think that what has been largely happening (of course it's not perfect).
One risk of strengthening the moderation team is that it might lead to the community leaning on it too much instead of doing its own job.
| 13:25:01 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jonas Chevalier: I don't believe that to be a realistic risk, as long as it is clearly communicated what is expected of the community | 13:27:12 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | involving a moderator is generally an annoying process | 13:28:18 |
| Jonas Chevalier | In reply to @ryblade:matrix.org
there was someone on this very room recently who would take everything a person says and then twist it into something worse, gaslighting everyone just to start an argument. it happens. that individual wasn't looking to resolve conflict, but to create it. once that became obvious enough, after repeated attempts to have a civil discussion, i took it upon myself to prevent further conflict. you may call it low-effort, i call it the highest achievable amount of effort my opponent was offering me, anything higher than that was clearly going to be impossible. That happens a lot when people feel threatened. It takes a lot of effort to dispel these things though. | 13:28:25 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | ryblade (you/your): "shouting in a void" is not something I said, btw, you might be confusing me with someone else (maybe Jonas Chevalier said that?) | 13:29:19 |
| ryblade | leaning on a strengthened moderation team is precisely what i'm worried about. moderators should be here to get rid of those who abuse services. people who run bots, spamming, flooding, that sort of thing. moderators are charged with the task of protecting us from actual security risks and complete disruptions to all conversations. | 13:29:31 |
| Jonas Chevalier | we already went over this :) | 13:29:36 |
| ryblade | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
ryblade (you/your): "shouting in a void" is not something I said, btw, you might be confusing me with someone else (maybe Jonas Chevalier said that?) oops! i stand corrected, thanks. | 13:29:37 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I have very different concerns with "just block them" | 13:29:40 |
| ryblade | we should never, ever, EVER get in the business of enforcing norms, or policing language, or rescuing people who feel offended. unpopular opinion: life is offensive, tough shit, deal with it. words on the internet are the least you should have to worry about in life. i come from a lot of marginalized communities myself, and i hate that i even have to say this every time in this day and age, but society kind of compels me to do so because otherwise people will assume my stoicism means i've never faced adversity, which is 100% untrue. | 13:30:07 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that is an abusive stance. | 13:30:37 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | you are disregarding people's specific personal circumstances, and essentially shifting the burden of dealing with abusive behaviour towards the victims of it, rather than the perpetrators or people in a moderation role | 13:31:11 |
| Jonas Chevalier | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
that is an abusive stance. please leave some room for other people's opinions | 13:31:28 |
| ryblade | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
that is an abusive stance. i grew up with domestic abuse, i'm not too keen on overusing that word to the point where it becomes meaningless. | 13:31:42 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jonas Chevalier: I do, but there are limits, and "fuck you, just deal with it" is one of them | 13:31:45 |
| ryblade | ask me why words don't hurt | 13:31:53 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that is not a stance I am willing to entertain as valid | 13:32:03 |
| ryblade | ooh, this is getting juicy now | 13:32:18 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (and more bluntly, if it becomes the social norm in the NixOS community, I will leave it) | 13:32:19 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (and I suspect that so will many others) | 13:32:27 |
| ryblade | invalid, huh? wow. | 13:32:39 |
| ryblade | must be nice. | 13:32:53 |
| ryblade | i envy that you have such a perspective on things. | 13:33:34 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | ryblade (you/your): I would also like to point out that you've been extremely provocative and aggressive in your comments over the past few days seemingly unprompted, and that your behaviour is not remotely consistent with principles of de-escalation and mediation | 13:33:49 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | this is going well beyond "I have some concerns" and into "fuck everybody else" | 13:34:25 |
| ryblade | i consider you to be provocative as well. my ilved experiences are invalid because you disagree with them? | 13:34:26 |
