| 3 Nov 2021 |
 @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | I feel like that's kind of nebulous, and can be interpreted in convenient manners | 19:17:24 |
 @jonringer:matrix.org | 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" none of that should exist if the majority of discussion is technical | 19:17:36 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | Just like that one person took something as sexist, even though it wasn't | 19:17:40 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | Agreed | 19:17:41 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | Could make that value point | 19:17:48 |
 @ryblade:matrix.org | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
ryblade: I guess I wasn't clear that this isn't really a big concern for me, I personally think labels are overrated, but honestly they do probably have some fair uses, and this might be one of them. I'm not offended at all, I just wanted to tell you about this opinion of mine :) Does that sound fair to you? very much, and thank you. much appreciated. | 19:17:49 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | * Could make that a value point | 19:17:51 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | Does anyone have any objections to advocating for a focus on technically discussion? | 19:18:40 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | * Does anyone have any objections to advocating for a focus on technical discussion? | 19:18:46 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | I also think polarization in general should be discouraged | 19:19:09 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | i.e; people trying to bring politics into an apolitical space | 19:19:19 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | 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. | 19:20:15 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | Feels good to be in good company | 19:20:35 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | worst of all, moderating "offense" places an easily abusable the power in the hands of the offended | 19:21:15 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | * worst of all, moderating "offense" places an easily abusable amount of power in the hands of the offended | 19:21:31 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | just say someone offended you and it's innocent until proven guilty, judged by a jury of the same people every single time | 19:22:03 |
 @infinisil:matrix.org | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
Isn't that the truth? There are very clearly people pushing for authoritarian policy A final remark: Yes I concur that seems to be the truth, there is a split community, I could've worded my message better to indicate that. I'm hoping we can address that however, peaceful mutual understandings are something beautiful :) | 19:22:04 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | 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 should be well defined and agree-able with the community | 19:22:09 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | * just say someone offended you and it's guilty until proven innocent (damn meds), judged by a jury of the same people every single time | 19:22:26 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | 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:matrix.org | * 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:matrix.org | 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:matrix.foxears.life | I think "offense" is something that should be completely untouched | 19:24:09 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | Offense is not harm | 19:24:11 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | * 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:matrix.foxears.life | Offense is qualia, not quanta. It's not truly actionable | 19:24:37 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | Anyone who pushes for action based on "offense" is vying for power | 19:24:48 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | 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: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 | 19:26:28 |
| @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life | We've navigated around the issue | 19:26:35 |
