| 24 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | so you'd need a degree of coordination between the two that makes them de facto one thing | 10:55:54 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | right, I would expect the moderation team to take inputs from the mediation team | 10:56:28 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | as in; "we tried everything we could" | 10:56:49 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | right, but then you ultimately haven't changed anything about the dynamic of "listen to the mediator or risk a ban", you've just added a layer of potential communication signal loss | 10:57:03 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I understand the problem you're highlighting, but I don't think that just splitting up the two would solve it | 10:57:50 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I'm not sure it is solvable, in a literal sense | 10:58:20 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | because that dynamic affects different people differently; it can make some people hesitant to engage, but it can be the trigger that's needed for other people to actually stop and listen (and quite often is, IME) | 10:58:56 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | you can probably massage the dynamic in how it's presented to people on a case-by-case basis | 10:59:55 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | mediation should probably stay optional | 10:59:56 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | "thinking of blocking somebody? contact us" :) | 11:00:26 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | what does 'optional' mean here, though? because if there is a conflict that people can't sort out amongst themselves, that conflict needs to be addressed somehow. is mediation 'optional' in the sense that you get banned if you don't pick it? because that would not truly be optional. or would it be 'optional' in the sense that you can choose to not resolve the conflict? then we're back to square one, with effectively no moderation mechanisms for the worst case | 11:01:25 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | it depends on your views of the role of moderation | 11:03:17 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | should the moderators read every message, and enforce their own opinion? | 11:03:38 |
