| 4 Nov 2021 |
 jonringer | How do you blaggacao feels about being banned from all official platforms? | 18:19:17 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and some degree of technical 'control' is necessary to carry out that task, but that is very different from power, which is what you are really talking about | 18:19:20 |
 Jonas Chevalier | ^ this is back to an authoritarian view of the world | 18:20:04 |
| jonringer | Power can be represented any many forms. The ability to deny someone participation is a form of power (e.g. bans) | 18:20:06 |
| Jonas Chevalier | anyways, dinner time! | 18:20:15 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | jonringer: sure, it is. power that the community holds in RFC 98, not an oligarchy as you are implying. | 18:20:34 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I really feel like you're conflating the power and control aspects of this situation | 18:21:00 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * I really feel like you're conflating the power and control aspects of this proposal | 18:21:07 |
| jonringer | No, the community doesn't hold. Because the moderation team is only responsible for them selves. | 18:21:09 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
now if your issue is that it has a hidden hierarchy in it, that'd certainly be a valid concern to raise and try to address . | 18:21:21 |
| jonringer | I mean, there's already some heirachy with domen, graham, and eelco having admin rights to a lot of the platforms. They just rarely do any moderation because their efforts are else where. | 18:22:15 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | RFC 98 explicitly states that it is meant to provide a non-hierarchical moderation structure. this means that it should explicitly not result in a situation where there is a handful of people who are unaccountable to the community. if you believe that the proposal, as it stands, does do that... then that is a bug in the RFC that needs to be raised and addressed. | 18:22:21 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | but then you will need to be a lot more specific about how that situation would come to exist | 18:22:41 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and not just say "it's an oligarchy!" | 18:22:45 |
| jonringer | "It means" doesn't mean "it will" | 18:22:45 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
I mean, there's already some heirachy with domen, graham, and eelco having admin rights to a lot of the platforms. They just rarely do any moderation because their efforts are else where. this is pre-RFC 98. | 18:23:26 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | therefore not a relevant criticism of RFC 98. | 18:23:33 |
| jonringer | That was in response to your comment about the community not having a heirarchy | 18:24:04 |
| jonringer | It does, it's just rarely used. | 18:24:15 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | what? I never claimed that "the community doesn't have a hierarchy" | 18:24:46 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I've even repeatedly explicitly mentioned RFC 98 to emphasize that I am talking about the structure that would come to exist under its approval, as opposed to the current structure | 18:25:16 |
| jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
now if your issue is that it has a hidden hierarchy in it, that'd certainly be a valid concern to raise and try to address this was the comment | 18:25:39 |
| jonringer | but I guess that was in context to the changes of 98 | 18:25:53 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | yes | 18:25:58 |
 Irenes | I have read through, like, maybe 80% of the scrollback since last night | 20:13:45 |
| Irenes | it got into some dense back and forth that is really hard to follow | 20:13:53 |
| Irenes | I strongly encourage people that if you have feedback that you want to be incorporated into the RFC, a chat room is not an appropriate venue to capture that, because it's all but impossible, even for somebody highly dedicated, to catch up on after the fact | 20:14:25 |
| Irenes | we have Discourse and we should use it | 20:14:31 |
 ash (it/its) 🏳️⚧️ | i agree with irenes that we should be having this discussion on discourse or github, not here. it took me multiple hours to read through all the scrollback... | 23:32:32 |
| ash (it/its) 🏳️⚧️ | that said, i want to reiterate what joepie91 said about rfc98 aiming to be explicitly non-hierarchical. it seems to be something that people are having trouble understanding, so we should look into adding wording in the rfc text regarding that | 23:37:54 |
