| 24 Nov 2021 |
 ryblade | again, that won't happen unless everybody is blocking that person. there will always, presumably, be someone who doesn't have that person blocked. | 13:08:14 |
 Jonas Chevalier | you're not the first one to react on "enforcing cultural norms". I think the meaning was to set acceptable behavior boundaries, "cultural" is not precise enough for that | 13:08:32 |
| ryblade | if you blocked me, you wouldn't be responding to me, but others still would. also, if i find myself blocked by almost the whole channel, and left wondering why... tough cookies? | 13:08:50 |
| ryblade | perhaps that gives me time to reflect? | 13:09:03 |
| ryblade | i mean, if you're blocked by a whole bunch of people, that probably means you did something wrong enough to warrant it. nobody just goes around blocking everybody for no reason. | 13:09:32 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I'm not saying that blocking is a bad thing in itself. It was more of a reflection on the potential side-effects. | 13:09:54 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I think we agree that blocking can be a useful tool | 13:10:11 |
| ryblade | a side-effect that only exists between blocker and blockee. if a mod unilaterally bans a person, NOBODY gets to see what that person has to say, which is worse. | 13:10:53 |
| ryblade | and this is a side-effect we already contend with considering we are on platforms that already support it, so it's a bit too late to tackle that philosophical conundrum | 13:11:57 |
| ryblade | * and this is a side-effect we already contend with considering we are on platforms that already support blocking, so it's a bit too late to tackle that philosophical conundrum | 13:12:11 |
| ryblade | i've got a few people on my blocklist already and i'm laughing at the idea of them being all confused and "WHY WON'T YOU FIGHT ME ARRGHGAHDFSHFKSDHF" | 13:12:54 |
| ryblade | because i will fight them if i don't block them, which is bad for all of us. | 13:13:51 |
| Jonas Chevalier | the point I was making was related to conflict resolution, which is related but separate from moderation | 13:14:08 |
| Jonas Chevalier | blocking is low effort, which is convenient | 13:14:33 |
| Jonas Chevalier | consensus and mutual understanding is preferable, but high effort | 13:14:54 |
| ryblade | of course, but there's people on here who are literally just looking for a fight. abject contrarians. | 13:15:15 |
| ryblade | i flip and flop between "three strikes" and "yellow card, red card", but after two or three attempts at civil discussion, and receiving nothing but flack in return, blox0red. | 13:16:03 |
| Jonas Chevalier | also on technical discussions? | 13:16:32 |
| ryblade | no loss, plenty of civil people on here to continue discussions with. | 13:16:34 |
| ryblade | mostly no, but there's no universal binary to any of my decision making. | 13:17:00 |
| Jonas Chevalier | topics like moderation tend to bring in morals into play, which is usually where discussions turn bad | 13:17:44 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I see a lot of fake enemies | 13:18:10 |
| ryblade | i had to block someone recently from an email list who had a false sense of expertise, that person was making it impossible to discuss tech solutions among the group without getting into arguments due to this person not only needing constant correction, but also hiding behind the victim card whenever it happened. that just ground the entire tech discussion to a halt. | 13:19:05 |
| ryblade | but i don't really encounter that much on here. | 13:19:41 |
| Jonas Chevalier | my understanding is that the RFC rewrite will clarify the "enforcing cultural norms" bit | 13:20:31 |
| ryblade | there was someone on this very room recently who would take everything a person says and then twist it into something worse, gaslighting everyone just to start an argument. it happens. that individual wasn't looking to resolve conflict, but to create it. once that became obvious enough, after repeated attempts to have a civil discussion, i took it upon myself to prevent further conflict. you may call it low-effort, i call it the highest achievable amount of effort my opponent was offering me, anything higher than that was clearly going to be impossible. | 13:23:32 |
| Jonas Chevalier |
one part of law that's not often considered, but is often the solution, is non-enforcement.
That's also something I was thinking about recently. As a community, every member can help move conversations towards positive outcomes and give constructive feedback to each-other. I think that what has been largely happening (of course it's not perfect).
One risk of strengthening the moderation team is that it might lead to the community leaning on it too much instead of doing its own job.
| 13:25:01 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jonas Chevalier: I don't believe that to be a realistic risk, as long as it is clearly communicated what is expected of the community | 13:27:12 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | involving a moderator is generally an annoying process | 13:28:18 |
| Jonas Chevalier | In reply to @ryblade:matrix.org
there was someone on this very room recently who would take everything a person says and then twist it into something worse, gaslighting everyone just to start an argument. it happens. that individual wasn't looking to resolve conflict, but to create it. once that became obvious enough, after repeated attempts to have a civil discussion, i took it upon myself to prevent further conflict. you may call it low-effort, i call it the highest achievable amount of effort my opponent was offering me, anything higher than that was clearly going to be impossible. That happens a lot when people feel threatened. It takes a lot of effort to dispel these things though. | 13:28:25 |
