| 4 Nov 2021 |
 @jonringer:matrix.org | And it focuses around behaviors of an individual, not politically charged wording like "social normals", "fascism", or "bigotry" | 14:58:45 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | * And it focuses around behaviors of an individual, not politically charged wording like "social norms", "fascism", or "bigotry" | 14:59:11 |
 tomberek | “Socially charged” might be better. | 14:59:31 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | Is it possible to evaluate effects based on mechanics rather than values? | 15:00:09 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | err, I just realized I should've probably said this explicitly earlier: in my experience, almost any conflict situation in a community, no matter how much of a fight and how many people are involved, has one or two instigators - identifying them and removing them from the conversation (through a ban or otherwise) is almost always enough to turn a conversation productive again | 15:00:25 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | hence why I mentioned 'instigators' above | 15:00:35 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
Is it possible to evaluate effects based on mechanics rather than values? Are you talking about "if this then that" punishment? | 15:00:38 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
Is it possible to evaluate effects based on mechanics rather than values? not sure I understand what you mean with this. can you give an example? | 15:01:08 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | Not the punishment part, more the evaluation method | 15:01:09 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | Please give me some room for unrefined thoughts :) | 15:01:31 |
| tomberek | There are some heuristics, imperfect, but productive. Rust CoC mentions a few. Names that are not allowed, question mod behavior in private, etc. | 15:03:22 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | I think a lot of uncertainty comes from applying morals, which are personal, to a specific situation.
What I noticed is that if I start evaluating conversations based on their effects instead, it becomes much less personal. For example I noticed that blaggacao messages take a lot of energy for me to parse. It's not personal but his personal communication style is difficult to me. Once I explained this to him, I think he understood and didn't take it personally.
Another advantage of that approach is that I didn't have to attribute any intent behind the issue. | 15:04:58 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | * I think a lot of uncertainty comes from applying morals, which are personal, to a specific situation.
What I noticed is that if I start evaluating conversations based on their effects instead, it becomes much less personal. For example I noticed that blaggacao messages take a lot of energy for me to parse. It's not personal but his personal communication style is difficult to me. Once I explained this to him, I think he understood and didn't take it personally.
Another advantage of that approach is that I didn't have to attribute any intent behind the issue. In fact I quite believe that the intent behind the original messages were coming from a good place. | 15:07:27 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | Just think about it :) | 15:10:18 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | Jonas Chevalier: right, I understand what you mean now. I think that is indeed the correct way to handle conflicts with someone who is acting in good faith; and this is usually also the first step that experienced moderators take in trying to resolve conflict in a community.
however, it usually falls down when dealing with bad actors in one specific place: acknowledging and accepting other people's experiences. for this to work, the 'offender' (for lack of a better term) needs to be willing to accept that the 'victim' is experiencing things in the way they say they are, and especially where bigotry is involved that usually doesn't happen - with the 'offender' instead choosing to trivialize the 'victim's experiences
| 15:10:23 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (or, in worse cases, applying something like DARVO, and claiming that the victim's experiences are made up purely to harm the offender) | 15:11:14 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | the nice this is that we can extend that benefit of the doubt to everybody. then we can set boundaries for behaviours that are unproductive. | 15:12:06 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
(or, in worse cases, applying something like DARVO, and claiming that the victim's experiences are made up purely to harm the offender) The only clear case of this that I'm aware of was supersandro on the receiving end | 15:12:58 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I'm deliberately not making judgments about any specific cases here | 15:13:20 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
(or, in worse cases, applying something like DARVO, and claiming that the victim's experiences are made up purely to harm the offender) * The only clear case of this (that I'm aware of) was supersandro on the receiving end | 15:13:23 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | let's start from a clean slate so we don't have to hold old grudges | 15:13:59 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | * let's start from a clean slate so we don't have to hold (onto) old grudges | 15:14:10 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | I think we can discuss this topic without either going into specific events that happened or explicitly forgetting about them. They are tangential to the current discussion, no less and no more | 15:15:21 |
 @lourkeur:nixos.dev | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
(or, in worse cases, applying something like DARVO, and claiming that the victim's experiences are made up purely to harm the offender) Your post assumes that you know who the real victim and the real offender is. How do you determine that in the real world if everyone claims to be the victim? | 15:15:35 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | IMO there were a lot of problems in the past that could have been resolved with good moderation | 15:15:36 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | It's not meant as grudge, it's a way to fit that event in context of proposed changes. I'm getting really tired of how generalized of a "threat to newcomers feeling welcome" is becoming the reason for these changes, when I haven't seen much in how it will solve these issues in an objective manner | 15:15:43 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | I agree that a moderation could have stepped in, and instead of the discourse thread which blew up, we could have had a much more satisfactory resolution for everyone. | 15:16:51 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | * I agree that a moderation team could have stepped in, and instead of the discourse thread which blew up, we could have had a much more satisfactory resolution for everyone. | 15:17:00 |
| tomberek | The "instigator" comment still bothers me. | 15:17:25 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | But this has a lot of assumptions about moderation team being able to be effective, and trying to pursue arbitration before just banning people | 15:17:45 |
