7 Nov 2021 |
@asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk | thanks for the links. unfortunately the length of the thread there is not compatible with the time i have available.. which is a shame, as these sorts of things are nuanced | 12:15:51 |
Irenes | yeah, I feel that | 12:16:01 |
@asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk | i have barely enough time to keep tabs on this rfc | 12:16:05 |
joepie91 π³οΈβπ | tomberek: okay, so let me attempt an example to illustrate it: let's say that we have some hypothetical 'conflict' unit. a proposal might involve 3 conflicts, or 20 conflicts, and so on. but not every conflict is equal; some conflicts are tiny (disagreement about what pizza to order), some conflicts are huge (I want to live vs. you want me to not live, like in what piegames quoted above). and some conflicts are fundamental and unresolvable (different taste preference for pizza toppings) whereas other conflicts are resolvable ("oops, I misunderstood what you meant with that, let's clarify the text").
how I am reading your question is basically "after how many conflicts do we give up on this proposal?" - but that is a question that doesn't make sense to me without more nuance. 10 conflicts about pizza toppings are annoying but not a critical issue, whereas a single conflict about whether someone deserves to live could make the whole proposal unworkable. likewise, conflicts might be genuine disagreements where a compromise can be reached, or they might almost all originate from one hypothetical person who is trying to derail the discussion so that no moderation changes are made, so that they can continue to evade consequences for their behaviour going forward.
I am taking all of these factors into account in deciding whether I continue to consider RFC 98 a workable proposal, or not. I'm not looking at the absolute quantitative amount of conflicts, but at what kind of conflicts they are. are they fundamental disagreements in values or morals that make it impossible to reconcile the community? or are they just cases of miscommunication because different people from different backgrounds interpret the same words in a different way?
and so far, my observation is that there are very few deliberately disruptive people, very few irreconcilable philosophical or moral disagreements, and that most of the conflict appears to be a product of miscommunication - which is something that is resolvable with enough time and good-faith communication (which is what I've been working on for the past few days). for that reason, I consider RFC 98 still workable, and that remains my position but only as long as the 'makeup' of the conflicts remains looking like this.
| 12:16:48 |
joepie91 π³οΈβπ | does that clarify what I mean? | 12:17:36 |
Irenes | joepie: do you mind if I take a pass at trying to summarize that in terms that I think will be helpful? | 12:22:22 |
joepie91 π³οΈβπ | Irenes: go ahead :) | 12:22:38 |
Irenes | thanks | 12:22:42 |
joepie91 π³οΈβπ | I went -vvvv mode there, heh | 12:22:48 |
Irenes | yeah | 12:23:01 |
Irenes | I think you're saying: the idea of quantifying conflict doesn't map on to a concept you have, so you're unable to answer that part. you do assess how bad things are, and your assessment is that there's a lot of visible badness right now but that there's a strong chance of a positive outcome, so it's worth it. | 12:24:41 |
Irenes | just to be super explicit, the preceding line overlaps with my views but not entirely; in particular, I do think it's possible in principle to quantify this stuff. I'm offering it as a summary only. | 12:25:31 |
joepie91 π³οΈβπ | that is more or less correct, yes | 12:25:37 |
Irenes | okay | 12:25:43 |
Irenes | tomberek: I hope that helps. | 12:25:50 |
joepie91 π³οΈβπ | (I do actually mentally quantify things like impact of conflict etc. as well, but it involves too many 'fuzzy factors' for me to express a quantitative limit upfront) | 12:26:31 |
joepie91 π³οΈβπ | * (I do actually mentally quantify things like impact of conflict etc. as well, but it involves too many 'fuzzy factors' for me to be able to express a quantitative limit upfront) | 12:26:38 |
joepie91 π³οΈβπ | (but I'm not sure it's productive to dive too deep into the weird way my brain works on these sorts of things :p) | 12:27:34 |
tomberek | Iβll take βgood-faithβ off the table for a moment. At what point of bad-faith discussion spreading all over the community would you reconsider. | 12:27:37 |
Irenes | who's that question for? | 12:27:52 |
tomberek | Joepie. | 12:28:10 |
tomberek | Or anyone. | 12:28:23 |
Irenes | if it's spreading beyond the existing moderation team's ability to control it, I'd assess whether it's realistic to wait it out, and failing that, I would take it as an indicator that things have decayed to the point that the goals of the RFC wouldn't be achievable anyway. | 12:29:36 |
tomberek | Iβm getting a sense of βat all costsβ and Iβm trying to understand how much of the community is considered an acceptable sacrifice. | 12:29:40 |
joepie91 π³οΈβπ | (I'll need a moment to formulate a clear answer, one sec) | 12:29:44 |
joepie91 π³οΈβπ | it's not 'at all costs', that much I can answer right away | 12:29:55 |
joepie91 π³οΈβπ | * it's not 'at all costs' for me, that much I can answer right away | 12:30:03 |
Ellie | I think this is related to the "these problems are better solved (perhaps painfully) at the moment, rather than waiting until it's totally unavoidable or has cause irreparable harm" conversation | 12:30:26 |
Irenes | just to state the conclusion that I hope is obvious, in case it isn't: if I conclude that the goals of the RFC are unattainable, of course, at that point I would withdraw it. no point causing further pain. | 12:31:08 |
tomberek | My point is that I think your goals are achievable, but at far lower cost via other means. | 12:32:46 |