| 3 Nov 2021 |
 GallantChef | So based on your post there, I think the main safeguards that could be implemented are:
- Clearly scoping what the powers of the moderation team are
- Coming up with a way to select for staff
- Enumerating what is or isn't an actionable offense in unambiguous language
- Use non-partisan language in the CoC that can't be interpreted with a slant
| 19:46:13 |
| GallantChef | * So based on your post there, I think the main safeguards that could be implemented are:
- Clearly scoping what the powers of the moderation team are
- Coming up with a way to select for staff
- Enumerating what is or isn't an actionable offense in unambiguous language
- Use non-partisan language in the CoC that can't be interpreted with a slant
- Providing transparency for said processes (bans, elections/appointment, etc.)
| 19:46:58 |
 jonringer | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
So based on your post there, I think the main safeguards that could be implemented are:
- Clearly scoping what the powers of the moderation team are
- Coming up with a way to select for staff
- Enumerating what is or isn't an actionable offense in unambiguous language
- Use non-partisan language in the CoC that can't be interpreted with a slant
- Providing transparency for said processes (bans, elections/appointment, etc.)
The first 2 I'll do in the moderation RFC, the last two will be part of the CoC RFC. The 3rd should be satisfied by the CoC as well | 19:47:46 |
 ryblade | ... and perhaps a brief mention on how a user can take their own action to curate their environment (blocking, etc.)? perhaps worded in a way that sounds more... i dunno... "empowering", rather than dismissive. if that makes sense. | 19:48:01 |
| GallantChef | That's brilliant, actually | 19:48:13 |
| GallantChef | Here in the Nix community, we encourage contributors to be empowered and take control of their environment thru such and such | 19:48:40 |
| GallantChef | [demonstrative/pronoun] likes that sort of rhetoric | 19:48:56 |
| ryblade | though perhaps if necessary, a clear delineation of where your responsibilities end and the moderators' responsibilities begin might also help. this sort of thing could be easily represented in a table. | 19:50:12 |
| GallantChef | Second, tables are good | 19:50:23 |
| GallantChef | Basically it could read as "when to contact a moderator" | 19:50:39 |
| GallantChef | Or "when to escalate" | 19:50:43 |
| ryblade | tables would be best | 19:51:02 |
| jonringer | In reply to @ryblade:matrix.org
... and perhaps a brief mention on how a user can take their own action to curate their environment (blocking, etc.)? perhaps worded in a way that sounds more... i dunno... "empowering", rather than dismissive. if that makes sense. I think the best solution is that anyone within the nix community can step in and help arbitrate minor miscommunications. However, that puts more responsibility on everyone. And not everyone wants to step up. which is why a moderation team should still be around | 19:51:25 |
| GallantChef | Self-moderation is truly ideal | 19:51:41 |
| ryblade | using fluffy, long paragraphs makes it easy to gloss over the details, and makes it much easier to sneak vague, weasily content into updates to the document. the bigger the document, the bigger the pork. | 19:51:50 |
| ryblade | tables all the way | 19:52:05 |
| GallantChef | tfw clear, concise, correct documentation | 19:52:16 |
| GallantChef | But yes, simpler and more unambiguous language is better, especially if this is going to be something translated or presented to an international community | 19:52:59 |
| GallantChef | It's paramount that it's easy to understand | 19:53:06 |
| ryblade | too bad it probably can't be simple enough to represent in pictograms, like those ikea furniture instructions :D | 19:55:00 |
| ryblade | but we should do our best all the same | 19:55:22 |
| ryblade | with regards to adapting this CoC to the rust one, i think even from line one, it's got that problem of having a huge laundry list of subgroups listed as examples of people you're supposed to be sensitive towards. that list is already enormous and it will always require updating. can't we just say "everyone" instead of having to point out all kinds of specific examples? otherwise it might make listed groups feel more entitled to moderator intervention than people who are not mentioned specifically. | 20:02:42 |
| GallantChef | I second that | 20:02:57 |
| ryblade | being so specific about each and every type of group we're supposed to respect might also make it impossible for members of the international community to participate, because they may have internet filters or laws against accessing material that is seen as promoting "western values". if anyone with the talent to contribute to nixos is among them, they might get arrested for helping a group of people with very clearly and objectively stated goals towards providing a safe environment for what their countries may perceive as sinners or criminals. that puts them in danger. and it robs us of potential talent, creating a lose-lose situation for all of us. | 20:03:12 |
| GallantChef | My thoughts on how to better write a line like that involves something to the effect of welcome all based on the contents of their character and not their phenotype | 20:04:10 |
| ryblade | YES. | 20:04:21 |
| ryblade | MLK for the win. | 20:04:23 |
| GallantChef | * My thoughts on how to better write a line like that, involves something to the effect of "welcome all based on the contents of their character and not their phenotype" | 20:04:23 |
| GallantChef | I'm dipping out for now, will check back in later. I'm definitely interested in proofreading and editing when the time comes | 20:04:52 |
| ryblade | glad i came here when i did to discuss this with you, and very pleased to meet you, GallantChef | 20:05:18 |
