| 24 Nov 2021 |
 @ryblade:matrix.org | for dozens of pages, there have been people here going on about how blocking is somehow a bad idea, despite it already being available, and for dozens more that opinion will continue to get posted. i'm merely providing a verbose counterpoint, with examples. i suppose i'm done, but as for whether "we" understand me... i guarantee you that is not so certain. | 13:48:54 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | ryblade (you/your): your point is understood. it is just not agreed with. which is why I am again asking: why are you here, what are you hoping to achieve with these comments? | 13:51:39 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | 
Download Screenshot from 2021-11-24 08-50-33.png | 13:51:46 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | not sure what client you're on but this might help in the mean time you're annoyed | 13:51:48 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | as you seem to be opposed to the entire principle of trying to keep the community a pleasant place at all | 13:52:02 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | anyway, morning hygiene time | 13:52:02 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | which is the whole premise of this RFC | 13:52:26 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | * for dozens of pages, there have been people here going on about how blocking is somehow a bad idea, despite it already being available, and for dozens more that opinion will continue to get posted. i'm merely providing a verbose counterpoint, with examples. i suppose i'm done, but as for whether "we" understand me... i guarantee you that is not so certain. if this comes up again, and i'm here, so will my opinions on the matter. i'm just as entitled as everybody, i'm not causing a disturbance. | 13:57:43 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | * for dozens of pages, there have been people here going on about how blocking is somehow a bad idea, despite it already being available, and for dozens more that opinion will continue to get posted. i'm merely providing a verbose counterpoint, with examples. i suppose i'm done, but as for whether "we" understand me... i guarantee you that is not so certain. if this comes up again, and i'm here, so will my opinions on the matter. i'm just as entitled as everybody, i'm not causing any disturbances outside of what thin-skinned interpretations may exist in the minds of the hypervigilant. | 13:58:28 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | * for dozens of pages, there have been people here going on about how blocking is somehow a bad idea, despite it already being available, and for dozens more that opinion will continue to get posted. i'm merely providing a verbose counterpoint, with examples. i suppose i'm done, but as for whether "we" understand me... i guarantee you that is not so certain. if this comes up again, and i'm here, so will my opinions on the matter. i'm just as entitled to repeat myself ad nauseum as everybody else on here (and other CoC discussions) has already done, i'm not causing any disturbances outside of what thin-skinned interpretations may exist in the minds of the hypervigilant. | 14:00:33 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | ryblade (you/your): I'd seriously appreciate an answer here, btw. I am asking because I do not want to assume your intent, but that is the only thing I can do without an answer from you | 14:40:16 |
 @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk | This seems like trolling 101 | 15:09:06 |
 tomberek | The disagreement does not seem to be about the general principle of wanting to have a pleasant place, but instead over how to define it, how to achieve it, and how much control should be exerted to enforce it. | 15:10:59 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | tomberek: I agree that that is what the disagreement of most people in here is about. I am not so sure about ryblade (you/your), however, considering their earlier comments. | 15:11:35 |
| tomberek |
Jonas attempted a bit of mediation and some levity. You've repeatedly stated that you think ryblade is taking an abusive stance. "Abuse" is mentioned in the RFC as something to be stopped. Does that warrant moderation action in this case? It seems to by the principle of "advocacy" from the values section. And very quickly we find ourselves again in not-ideal situation. | 15:51:33 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | tomberek: I would be very much in favour for banning ryblade (you/your) over the behaviour that they have demonstrated not just over the past few days, but also the behaviour when this room first started, as it has been abusive like this since the start | 15:53:45 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * tomberek: I would be very much in favour of banning ryblade (you/your) over the behaviour that they have demonstrated not just over the past few days, but also the behaviour when this room first started, as it has been abusive like this since the start | 15:53:51 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | they have clearly indicated that they do not intend to respect the needs and concerns of others | 15:54:01 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and do not seem to even share the fundamental goal of RFC 98, regardless of its implementation details | 15:54:21 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | so yes, this warrants moderation action, and is in fact a perfect example of how bad-faith actors can disrupt an otherwise-constructive discussion and make it unworkable | 15:54:58 |
| tomberek | Well......... this is exactly why people are concerned. It's too easy to go down this path. ^^^^^ | 15:55:14 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | tomberek: if comments that are just about two words removed from "I do not care about harm done to others" and a repeated demonstration of doing that harm are not sufficient reason to consider exclusion from the community to you, then please explain to me under what circumstances you wouldn't interpret moderation action as "too easy to go down this path"? | 15:56:51 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | like, there are a lot of good examples that one can think of to show how mismoderation can cause issues, but this is extremely not one of them | 15:57:29 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | so please consider carefully whether you want to use this case as a 'figurehead' to express concerns... | 15:59:07 |
| tomberek | You have stated before that you don't care about the harm/conflict/disruption done to the community if it means something like this RFC passes, for the greater good. | 16:02:03 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | no, I have not. | 16:03:34 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | in fact, if I'm remembering correctly (I'm not 100% sure that I am), you repeatedly asked me whether that was my stance and I repeatedly expressed that it was not and clarified my stance | 16:04:14 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | this also seems immaterial to the concern that I am raising | 16:05:19 |
| tomberek | While I can admit the connotation is negative, the intended meaning is accurate: it is possible to oppose a witch-hunt without endorsing witchcraft. | 16:06:20 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | namely: someone is repeatedly being disruptive, making constructive discussion unworkable, being decidedly aggressive to people, all the while seemingly having no intention of constructively contributing to the project that is RFC 98 | 16:06:22 |
