In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
jonringer: also, did you understand what I meant with the point about sometimes needing 'policy shortcuts' for effective moderation? as that topic kinda got interrupted :p

I would like to submit exhibit N, here is how the SerenityOS handles moderation on their Discord:

## Hello, and welcome to the SerenityOS Discord.

Project GitHub: https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity
SerenityOS FAQ: https://serenityos.org/faq/
Andreas FAQ: https://awesomekling.github.io/faq/

The purpose of this server is to facilitate productive development of the SerenityOS project. Any behavior that runs counter to that goal will not be tolerated.

## Some basic rules:

1. Do the best you can, both in code and in communication. Expect others to do the same.
2. Politics, religion and sex are not appropriate topics here. Discuss them elsewhere.
3. Any discussion unrelated to the SerenityOS project belongs in the off-topic channel.
4. Try your best to keep a positive attitude, and try to not drag others down if/when you're having a bad day.
5. Don't complain about things you are not actively engaged in improving. This includes low-effort whining like "$THING is trash". Don't shit on other projects, companies, or communities. 
6. If you need help building SerenityOS, use the build-problems channel.
8. Talk is cheap. Don't waste other people's time by talking about your great ideas if you don't also spend time implementing your ideas. We have no need for "idea guys"
9. Don't ask other people to look things up for you. If a question can be answered by consulting the code, the git history, the issue tracker, or a search engine, look it up yourself.
10. Avoid when-posting. "When will Serenity get this feature?", "When will you do X?", etc. If you want to see something happen, you make it happen.
11. Refrain from excitement-posting in development channels. We are all excited about SerenityOS, but please don't add unnecessary noise.
12. If a bug is discussed, please make sure there's a GitHub issue for it.
13. No soliciting of any kind.

Thank you for reading, have a great day! :caret: 

In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
In my moderation RFC was going to define a banning process where people could be banned for 48hrs to 72hrs before making a longer more official one

I'm not really a fan of timed bans, personally, for a few different reasons:

• they perceptually devalue bans from a "last resort" to an "obvious tool", because "it's temporary anyway"
• problematic behaviour does not magically become unproblematic after 48 hours; if the same person still has the same views and same (lack of) adherence to social norms, they will reoffend afterwards, and so the practical result of this is that you're just giving problematic people more 'free airtime'
• it also fails in the other direction; in the rare event that a ban is the event that makes someone go "... fuck. I really was in the wrong" (it does happen!), if the times are set in policy, one cannot be unbanned earlier without at the very least invoking the ire of the community who feel betrayed, and this in turn might make the banned person frustrated and turn their opportunity for reflection into an opportunity for their anger to build further