| 4 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (in fact, this exact question is the major reason why a legalistic approach to moderation - set hard-and-fast rules and exactly enforce them - doesn't work in practice) | 15:18:39 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
What's important is to be focused on conflict resolution. Banning has taken up too much space in the conversation and should really be the exception. I strongly agree with this, to be clear | 15:19:03 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I believe that so does the RFC, actually | 15:19:12 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | if I am not misremembering | 15:19:22 |
 Jonas Chevalier | the RFC is a lot of things | 15:19:29 |
| Jonas Chevalier | when we read it, we all see something different | 15:19:51 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * (in fact, this exact question is the major reason why a legalistic approach to moderation - set hard-and-fast rules and exactly enforce them - doesn't work in practice - there is no deterministic upfront way to answer this question) | 15:20:02 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * (in fact, this exact question is the major reason why a legalistic approach to moderation - set hard-and-fast rules and exactly enforce them - doesn't work in practice; there is no deterministic upfront way to answer this question) | 15:20:09 |
| Jonas Chevalier | half of the conflict is based on some of the ambiguity of the language | 15:20:21 |
 tomberek | That is a limited view of legalistic. It also means admitting the system can fail. Checks and balances. Protections from abuse. | 15:20:23 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | unfortunately social norms don't modularize as well as code does :p | 15:20:31 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | actually, maybe a good analogy is security work; security work is notoriously difficult to modularize, because it always needs to consider the whole system to be effective, because you're dealing with some sort of adversary | 15:21:17 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | outside of conflict resolution between good-faith participants, community management is shaped very similarly | 15:21:48 |
| Jonas Chevalier | maybe what we should do is take an empirical approach to the problem. create a small moderation team, for a limited amount of time, and see how it works out | 15:21:52 |
| tomberek | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
maybe what we should do is take an empirical approach to the problem. create a small moderation team, for a limited amount of time, and see how it works out so.... 102? :) | 15:22:17 |
| Jonas Chevalier | wasn't 102 a knee-jerk ? :p | 15:23:13 |
| tomberek | it was, but not completely unprincipled or without thought | 15:23:46 |
| tomberek | The major issue with 98 seemed to be that it was too easy to misinterpret both the language, as well as the overall intent. | 15:24:33 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
That is a limited view of legalistic. It also means admitting the system can fail. Checks and balances. Protections from abuse. you can have such protections in a non-legalistic system as well, my point here is more that a legalistic approach just fundamentally cannot work as well at this scale.
but to give an example, in PG (formerly PTIO) we have a 'community reports' room that essentially serves as a room for discussing and questioning moderation decisions. it is exempt from the community-wide ban bot, and the threshold for getting banned there is very high.
by having a dedicated separate room for this, it prevents concern trolling in the main rooms (as there's nothing to disrupt, anyone in comrep is there because they are interested in the topic), while still leaving plenty of opportunity for community members to publicly question moderation decisions
| 15:25:00 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that is of course a safeguard that's specifically designed for the moderation structure over at PG; different systems (RFC98 is very different!) will warrant different safeguards | 15:26:00 |
| Jonas Chevalier | nice, we're getting to concrete things to do | 15:26:01 |
| Jonas Chevalier | having a clear place where people can report abuse is important | 15:26:22 |
| Jonas Chevalier | we want to also reduce uncertainty of what happens to the process | 15:26:34 |
| Jonas Chevalier | * we want to also reduce uncertainty of what happens with the process | 15:26:42 |
| Jonas Chevalier | both for sides of the complaint | 15:26:59 |
| Jonas Chevalier | * for both for sides of the complaint | 15:27:03 |
| Jonas Chevalier | and if the moderation team goes out of hand, it would be sweet to have a community-wide mechanism that can disband the team | 15:28:04 |
 piegames | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
and if the moderation team goes out of hand, it would be sweet to have a community-wide mechanism that can disband the team Something like StackOverflows "moderator election"? | 15:28:24 |
| piegames | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
and if the moderation team goes out of hand, it would be sweet to have a community-wide mechanism that can disband the team * Something like StackOverflow's "moderator election"? | 15:28:29 |
 jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
that is of course a safeguard that's specifically designed for the moderation structure over at PG; different systems (RFC98 is very different!) will warrant different safeguards For my second RFC, I was going to take take a lot of the moderation team content from it. As I said earlier, there are parts of it I like (motivation section, value section, having a sustainable rotating moderation team), but there's other parts that I have extreme concern about | 15:28:52 |
