| 24 Nov 2021 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | of course they might decide not to listen, which is why banning is requested as a tool | 10:55:19 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that is a complicated dynamic, for sure. but the alternative also has its issues; if the two don't function as one, things will fail both ways... moderators will interfere with a mediator's process in some cases, and fail to ban people who refuse the mediation process in other cases | 10:55:35 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | the flipside is that people will not be open because of the ban threat | 10:55:44 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | so you'd need a degree of coordination between the two that makes them de facto one thing | 10:55:54 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | right, I would expect the moderation team to take inputs from the mediation team | 10:56:28 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | as in; "we tried everything we could" | 10:56:49 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | right, but then you ultimately haven't changed anything about the dynamic of "listen to the mediator or risk a ban", you've just added a layer of potential communication signal loss | 10:57:03 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I understand the problem you're highlighting, but I don't think that just splitting up the two would solve it | 10:57:50 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I'm not sure it is solvable, in a literal sense | 10:58:20 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | because that dynamic affects different people differently; it can make some people hesitant to engage, but it can be the trigger that's needed for other people to actually stop and listen (and quite often is, IME) | 10:58:56 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | you can probably massage the dynamic in how it's presented to people on a case-by-case basis | 10:59:55 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | mediation should probably stay optional | 10:59:56 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | "thinking of blocking somebody? contact us" :) | 11:00:26 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | what does 'optional' mean here, though? because if there is a conflict that people can't sort out amongst themselves, that conflict needs to be addressed somehow. is mediation 'optional' in the sense that you get banned if you don't pick it? because that would not truly be optional. or would it be 'optional' in the sense that you can choose to not resolve the conflict? then we're back to square one, with effectively no moderation mechanisms for the worst case | 11:01:25 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | it depends on your views of the role of moderation | 11:03:17 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | should the moderators read every message, and enforce their own opinion? | 11:03:38 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | or should they let the community sort things by themselves, and be pulled in when requested | 11:04:14 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | neither. | 11:04:30 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | with all the grey and nuance in the middle | 11:04:40 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | is the moderation team monitoring behaviour, maintaining list of problematic people, gestapo style :p | 11:05:51 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | 'read everything and enforce their opinion' fails because you essentially end up with a channel only for moderators. 'be pulled in when requested' fails because it only addresses overt conflict, and even then only in part of the cases. the job of a moderator, IMO, should be to address problematic conflict in every sense; both that which is overt, and that which is not (with bigoted comments being a concrete example of the latter) | 11:05:57 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | so it is their job to keep an eye on the community and pick out problematic things, but only in the context of their responsibility to keep the community healthy | 11:06:26 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that certainly is going to involve some subjective judgment (though that's much less of a problem when you have multiple moderators working together), but that is still very far removed from "enforcing moderator opinions" | 11:07:18 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | as a concrete example, the only cases where I've (very occasionally) banned people in the technical communities I moderate for disagreement on technical opinions, are those cases where someone routinely provided dangerous advice and refused to consider feedback about that. besides that, it is not my job to police technical opinions | 11:09:05 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * as a concrete example, the only cases where I've (very occasionally) banned people in the technical communities I moderate for disagreement on technical opinions, are those cases where someone routinely provided dangerous advice to newbies and refused to consider feedback about that. besides that, it is not my job to police technical opinions | 11:09:16 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
is the moderation team monitoring behaviour, maintaining list of problematic people, gestapo style :p I don't think "gestapo style" is an appropriate metaphor to invoke here, but yes, most every experienced moderator will maintain a mental list of people to keep an eye on | 11:10:13 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | it makes me think of a rate-limiter, where every infraction bumps the counter | 11:13:39 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | sorry, you're over the rate-limit, 401 Unauthorized | 11:14:15 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it's a bit fuzzier than that, but not too far off from how moderation often works | 11:14:30 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | many "exactly on the boundaries of acceptable behaviour" equal one overt transgression, basically | 11:14:57 |
