| 5 Nov 2021 |
 jonringer | And you're forcing myself and everyone to "play by your rules" | 01:43:13 |
| jonringer | One day, I'm going to step on an egg shell, an get banned. I don't want to be the 2nd genesis | 01:44:29 |
 Irenes | how do you feel about the statement of values? | 01:44:30 |
| Irenes | one of the action items we have right now is to add some wording that more explicitly discusses what restorative justice is and what remedies there are that aren't bans | 01:45:12 |
| Irenes | we tried heavily to allude to that by discussing mediation | 01:45:22 |
| Irenes | and by describing bans as, I think the word was, a "last resort" | 01:45:29 |
| Irenes | along with some philosophy about why they are a last resort | 01:45:38 |
| jonringer | What about genesis' restorative justice. His temp ban has been ongoing since March | 01:45:44 |
| Irenes | but it does need to be more explicit, with citations and stuff | 01:45:49 |
| Irenes | that's not under the system the RFC would create | 01:45:55 |
| Irenes | it's being done by the existing volunteers who are very time-constrained | 01:46:11 |
| Irenes | the RFC authors have no power over that situation | 01:46:27 |
| Irenes | except to whatever extent anyone cares what we think, I guess | 01:46:43 |
| Irenes | the leadership development aspect of the RFC is intended, in part to ensure that the pool of people who can help with things is larger | 01:47:09 |
| Irenes | so that people's day jobs won't get in the way of it | 01:47:14 |
| Irenes | which will allow more nuanced remedies | 01:47:25 |
| Irenes | I admit I'm not familiar with that person so I can't comment on the specifics | 01:47:46 |
| jonringer | English was a second language for him, and he didn't understand that "their" could refer to a single individual | 01:48:27 |
| Irenes | the system the RFC is attempting to create is, I think, actually far more generous to people who break the rules than what its critics are calling for | 01:48:57 |
| Irenes | I'm really confused by the reaction that people are afraid they might break the rules accidentally, so they want the rules to be stricter | 01:49:31 |
| Irenes | which seems to be a common theme, I don't think it's just you | 01:49:41 |
| Irenes | I mean | 01:49:42 |
| Irenes | I get that it's really about trust | 01:49:45 |
 tomberek | (sorry, i had some other things to attend to). Thanks Irenes , i'm reading through it. | 01:49:47 |
| Irenes | and that formal, precise rules are better for situations where there is no trust between the people who enforce them and the community they claim to serve | 01:50:11 |
| Irenes | but this RFC isn't trying to be a no-trust solution, it will only work if the team that gets appointed manages to build that trust | 01:50:36 |
| jonringer | There has been little reason for me to trust the fairness or objectiveness of much of this community. | 01:50:43 |
| Irenes | I don't think a no-trust solution would be right for Nix | 01:50:49 |
| Irenes | that's completely fair. people do differ, dramatically. | 01:51:01 |
| Irenes | there are valid reasons to assume that the community team might not see your side of things. | 01:51:18 |
