| 4 Nov 2021 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | or, in less words: I think the social norms are too intertwined with the proposed moderation mechanism to separate them out | 17:16:35 |
 jonringer | I view RFCs like I view PRs. Large PRs are harder to merge because the scope is so much larger, and there is more to nit pick | 17:16:51 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | sure - but as I've mentioned before, community management doesn't really modularize like code does, unfortunately | 17:17:17 |
| jonringer | Having more focused discussion allows for the dialogue to progress more. | 17:17:25 |
| jonringer | I think it can be compartmentalized to some degrees. What laws there should be, and how those laws are enforced is one logical division | 17:18:00 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I think it would be a superficial form of 'progress'; one that certainly reduces conflict in the short term, but whose outcome would be significantly worse than a whole-system analysis would produce, leaving too many conflicting/unspecified things that will produce conflict in the future | 17:18:25 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | and I'm generally in favour of eating the upfront cost rather than multiplying it many times and smearing it out over the longer term, in situations like these | 17:19:00 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
I think it can be compartmentalized to some degrees. What laws there should be, and how those laws are enforced is one logical division "laws" are a legalistic system, though - which isn't (or at least shouldn't be) what we're building here. even nation states can barely make it work | 17:19:26 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | legalistic systems are much easier to compartmentalize precisely because they do not address a system as a whole | 17:19:43 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | and that is an unfortunate necessity at nation scale, but the results aren't great | 17:19:58 |
| jonringer | Let me also be clear, if forcing people to abide by someone's definition of "social norms", "fascism", and "bigotry". I'm leaving the community | 17:20:20 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I struggle to read that as anything other than "I will decide what I say and how I behave, and other people will just have to deal with it" | 17:20:47 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | if that is not what you meant, please clarify :/ | 17:21:01 |
| jonringer | what | 17:21:09 |
| jonringer | Everyone has free will, and can act as they choose. RFC 114 is there to ensure that people act productively with others, and there's some framework. | 17:22:12 |
| jonringer | RFC 98, in its current state, is also enforcing a political narrative | 17:22:30 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | so is RFC 114. | 17:22:45 |
| jonringer | how so | 17:22:53 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | it's just a political (or more accurately: ideological) view that aligns more with the status quo of the world in which NixOS exists | 17:23:02 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | and therefore stands out less | 17:23:06 |
| jonringer | other than mentions of "marginalized communities", almost all of the content is behavior | 17:23:44 |
| jonringer | * other than mentions of "marginalized communities", almost all of the content is behavioral | 17:23:48 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I think it would be a superficial form of 'progress'; one that certainly reduces conflict in the short term, but whose outcome would be significantly worse than a whole-system analysis would produce, leaving too many conflicting/unspecified things that will produce conflict in the future This is back to making those abstract claims. I suppose you have something clear in your head but it's not obvious what it is. | 17:24:58 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | that doesn't change that there is an ideological conviction behind the RFC, even if it doesn't become obvious from the text; in this case, a conviction that only [blatant] outward behaviour should be a factor in making moderation decisions, and not intent or impact | 17:24:59 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | the difference in RFC 98 is that it states this ideological conviction explicitly, rather than benefiting from its proximity to the status quo by leaving it implicit | 17:25:33 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * the difference in RFC 98 is that it states its ideological conviction explicitly, rather than benefiting from its proximity to the status quo by leaving it implicit | 17:25:40 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | both of them are ideologically-motivated, and the same will be true for any proposal on moderation policy and social norms | 17:26:05 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
This is back to making those abstract claims. I suppose you have something clear in your head but it's not obvious what it is. I described this in a bit more concrete detail here: https://matrix.to/#/!YvjJmbmVxFKdRqsLPx:nixos.org/$wMLNea8QP68EDUNABpc9B15vAToYRBhOKwdN5AvGWW8?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=pixie.town | 17:26:38 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
This is back to making those abstract claims. I suppose you have something clear in your head but it's not obvious what it is. * I explained this in a bit more concrete detail here: https://matrix.to/#/!YvjJmbmVxFKdRqsLPx:nixos.org/$wMLNea8QP68EDUNABpc9B15vAToYRBhOKwdN5AvGWW8?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=pixie.town | 17:26:45 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
that doesn't change that there is an ideological conviction behind the RFC, even if it doesn't become obvious from the text; in this case, a conviction that only [blatant] outward behaviour should be a factor in making moderation decisions, and not intent or impact (I've bracketed "blatant" here because that was probably not the intention, but it is the real-world result of this type of policy; anything that isn't blatant is near impossible to argue under it) | 17:27:37 |
