| 3 Nov 2021 |
 jonringer | In reply to @ryblade:matrix.org
worst of all, moderating "offense" places an easily abusable amount of power in the hands of the offended * which is why i wanted two RFCs. The process in which the governing body exercises their power should be well defined and agree-able with the community | 19:22:28 |
 ryblade | * just say someone offended you and it's guilty until proven innocent (edit: damn meds), judged by a jury of the same people every single time | 19:22:40 |
| ryblade | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
jonringer, I guess one thing that concerns me is in the moderation section "hateful, hurtful, oppressive, or exclusionary remarks" * was just about to say something about this, too. hard disagree on this being in there. what constitutes such behaviour is EXTREMELY SUBJECTIVE. not only that, but moderating that behaviour is ridiculous on any platform that allows the offended party to block the source of offense. fringe cases, such as mobbing or sock puppetry, would definitely require the intervention of a moderator, but if it's one person who is offending you, it should be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to block THEM. calling on some nanny squad, who have much bigger fish to fry, is only going to burn out well meaning moderators and leave only the worst kind behind through attrition. | 19:23:50 |
 GallantChef | I think "offense" is something that should be completely untouched | 19:24:09 |
| GallantChef | Offense is not harm | 19:24:11 |
| ryblade | * was just about to say something about this, too. hard disagree on this being in there. what constitutes such behaviour is EXTREMELY SUBJECTIVE. not only that, but moderating that behaviour is ridiculous on any platform that allows the offended party to block the source of offense. fringe cases, such as mobbing or sock puppetry, would definitely require the intervention of a moderator, but if it's one person who is offending you, it should be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to block THEM. calling on some nanny squad, who have much bigger fish to fry (such as people trying to actively abuse the communication systems and platforms themselves), is only going to burn out well meaning moderators and leave only the worst kind behind through attrition. | 19:24:31 |
| GallantChef | Offense is qualia, not quanta. It's not truly actionable | 19:24:37 |
| GallantChef | Anyone who pushes for action based on "offense" is vying for power | 19:24:48 |
| GallantChef | I suppose this comes back to my desire to avoid polarization. If we define what is or isn't offensive, some people will like it, some people will dislike it. It'll cause enmity and division | 19:25:59 |
| GallantChef | If we say "if you're offended, feel free to ignore the offender and move on with your life" suddenly it's no longer a matter worth discussing | 19:26:28 |
| GallantChef | We've navigated around the issue | 19:26:35 |
| ryblade | like i said, we have block functions on every platform and protocol under the sun these days. perhaps a focus on teaching newcomers how to utilize these functions would be a better use of our time. | 19:27:24 |
 moritz.hedtke | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
If we say "if you're offended, feel free to ignore the offender and move on with your life" suddenly it's no longer a matter worth discussing I don't think this creates a welcoming community. Still I agree that defining "offend" is impossible especially in an international community | 19:27:24 |
| GallantChef | Frankly, just saying this stuff out loud has me fearful that I'll be doxxed by someone who disagrees | 19:27:32 |
| GallantChef | NixOS is important to me, though | 19:28:05 |
| GallantChef | And I don't want to see the community around it decline | 19:28:14 |
| ryblade | block an offensive person for a man, he will want another person blocked tomorrow. teach a man to block, and he will never be offended again. | 19:28:23 |
| ryblade | and by man i mean human plz no bulli | 19:28:38 |
| GallantChef | Masculine nouns have always been shorthand for "all of X" in Indo-European languages forever | 19:29:05 |
| GallantChef | Kvetching about that is a modern thing | 19:29:13 |
| jonringer | This is getting off subject from the RFC. | 19:30:12 |
| jonringer | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
Frankly, just saying this stuff out loud has me fearful that I'll be doxxed by someone who disagrees Can't be doxxed, if you doxxed yourself (e.g. me) | 19:30:25 |
| GallantChef | Heh | 19:30:30 |
| GallantChef | That's fair | 19:30:32 |
| GallantChef | Anyways, back to the RFC. Moderating based on offense is a terrible idea | 19:30:47 |
| GallantChef | We should not do that | 19:30:50 |
| GallantChef | Anyone can feign offense | 19:30:56 |
| jonringer | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
Anyone can feign offense yes, but it will be up to the moderation team to decide the course of action. And that can be disputed in another RFC around the moderation team | 19:31:25 |
| ryblade | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
This is getting off subject from the RFC. not necessarily. i think that if we included a brief, friendly rundown on how to use some of the block features on discourse, matrix, etc., or at the very least provided links within, it would help offset a lot of requests to have a squad dedicated to taking down offensive people. without it, newcomers may assume that policy is "missing", without realizing that the topic had already been discussed and a solution had been found. | 19:31:59 |
| jonringer | reviewing 102, I think it doesn't have enough "teeth" to really do much. It really just defines the current situation in a formal RFC | 19:32:01 |
