| 4 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | not quite; untimed bans have a terminal condition | 16:30:03 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | permanent bans do not | 16:30:08 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
Jonas Chevalier: I feel like most of the complexity of RFC98 is honestly not in the rules, but rather in the mechanisms - it is essentially an attempt to establish a non-authoritarian, non-hierarchical moderation approach in the context of a world which does the exact opposite Half of the issue is the undertone of the document, and the defensive attitude of the document. I think it's important to start on a positive footing like the SerenityOS rules. Of course we would need to tackle on an enforcement mechanism on top of it. | 16:30:15 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (I probably shouldn't have said 'permanent', that was my mistake :p) | 16:30:24 |
 jonringer | Jonas Chevalier: Again, I think SerenityOS has the benefit of someone being the deciding authority on what values are important. And his presence allows for them to be adhered. We don't really have that in nix | 16:31:18 |
| jonringer | eelco is very "lassez faire" when it comes to community interaction, and we are largely just a collection of nerds making nixpkgs work | 16:31:44 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | eelco mostly cares about technology | 16:32:05 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
A long term ban should have enough "supporting evidence" that the community will also agree with actions taken by the moderation team. I would phrase it differently: a long-term ban should be justifiable to the community - sometimes that means showing receipts for behaviour that everybody agrees is bad, sometimes that means explaining in detail why a seemingly-okay behaviour is actually problematic and they refused to work on it.
but this is true whether or not you enshrine it in policy, really; if you cannot justify your moderation decisions, then you will have an uprising on your hands. I do think there's some value in formalizing this to avoid the "rules don't say we need to justify bans" argument in the worst case, but I don't think it's a crucial pillar of formal moderation policy
| 16:32:17 |
| jonringer | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
eelco mostly cares about technology And I would say the same for the vast majority of the community | 16:32:20 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | maybe we should ask him what he wants :p | 16:32:58 |
| jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I would phrase it differently: a long-term ban should be justifiable to the community - sometimes that means showing receipts for behaviour that everybody agrees is bad, sometimes that means explaining in detail why a seemingly-okay behaviour is actually problematic and they refused to work on it.
but this is true whether or not you enshrine it in policy, really; if you cannot justify your moderation decisions, then you will have an uprising on your hands. I do think there's some value in formalizing this to avoid the "rules don't say we need to justify bans" argument in the worst case, but I don't think it's a crucial pillar of formal moderation policy
sure, 100 small infractions can be as disruptive as a few large infractions. | 16:33:01 |
| jonringer | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
maybe we should ask him what he wants :p I think it will be along the lines, "for nix to be successful" | 16:33:18 |
 abathur | It's a bit oblique to this conversation, but I've wondered as this spools out if the RFC process doesn't help ensure part of this trouble in contentious areas by expecting a large up-front investment in staking out (and thus having to defend) a vision for something | 16:34:07 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I would phrase it differently: a long-term ban should be justifiable to the community - sometimes that means showing receipts for behaviour that everybody agrees is bad, sometimes that means explaining in detail why a seemingly-okay behaviour is actually problematic and they refused to work on it.
but this is true whether or not you enshrine it in policy, really; if you cannot justify your moderation decisions, then you will have an uprising on your hands. I do think there's some value in formalizing this to avoid the "rules don't say we need to justify bans" argument in the worst case, but I don't think it's a crucial pillar of formal moderation policy
this is pretty much the issue we have with today's moderation decisions | 16:34:16 |
| abathur | as opposed to some more step-wise effort and building incremental consensus | 16:34:33 |
| abathur | * as opposed to some more step-wise effort at building incremental consensus | 16:34:41 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
I think it will be along the lines, "for nix to be successful" probably :) | 16:34:48 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jonas Chevalier: that, I can agree with. but I don't think that's a consequence of moderators not wanting to justify their decisions, but rather of "not having a healthily-sized moderation team and so nobody has the energy to do the justification work" | 16:35:04 |
