| 7 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | oh no, I've been hackernews'ed | 13:04:13 |
 Irenes | someone posted about you? I'm so sorry | 13:04:29 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | rather a gist of mine | 13:04:37 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | so yeah, if I seem inattentive over the next couple of days, it's probably because of the fallout from that | 13:05:01 |
| Irenes | my sympathies. feel free to message 1:1 if you need emotional support, my friends and I have been in many analogous situations and I'm always happy to listen. | 13:05:24 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | thanks | 13:05:45 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
oh no, I've been hackernews'ed What for? Related to Nix? | 13:09:57 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | ESM | 13:13:27 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | but I don't want to take over this channel with complaints about HN, it was more just a comment of "here's why I'm gonna be a bit absent probably" :) | 13:15:39 |
| 12 Nov 2021 |
| Room Avatar Renderer. | 03:56:47 |
| 14 Nov 2021 |
|  @colemickens:matrix.org joined the room. | 07:23:45 |
| 21 Nov 2021 |
|  @ryblade:matrix.org set a profile picture. | 20:42:48 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org changed their display name from ryblade to ryblade (you/your). | 21:32:49 |
| 22 Nov 2021 |
 @hexa:lossy.network | https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671 | 16:00:06 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | In reply to @hexa:lossy.network
https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671 whoa | 16:12:32 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | There's been some drama around the core team a few weeks ago, but wow | 16:13:57 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | absolutely nuts | 16:14:31 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | wonder if this is in response to the ashley williams stuff or not | 16:19:59 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | also https://mobile.twitter.com/adamhjk/status/1462812661356265473 | 16:26:22 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | * also https://twitter.com/adamhjk/status/1462812661356265473 | 16:26:26 |
 [0x4A6F] | Interesting talk at RIPE83: Dr. Corinne Cath - The Enemy is us: on the sharp edges of Internet Governance Cultures slides & video. | 16:26:51 |
| [0x4A6F] | There is also a RIPE Code of Conduct in RIPE-766. | 16:27:01 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | In reply to @0x4a6f:matrix.org
There is also a RIPE Code of Conduct in RIPE-766. looks RIPE for abuse, especially by the end of the document | 16:34:03 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | that good faith clause seems to vaguely declare that certain people are naturally incapable of being victims or perpetrators. i'm more a believer in "hate is as hate does". | 16:42:39 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | * that "discretion to reject reports" section seems to vaguely declare that certain people are naturally incapable of being victims or perpetrators. i'm more a believer in "hate is as hate does". | 16:43:49 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | I always measure "good faith" on the reaction of people when called out. Do they acknowledge a mistake, do things actually improve afterwards (if it happened repeatedly), or do they double down on their bad take? | 16:43:58 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
I always measure "good faith" on the reaction of people when called out. Do they acknowledge a mistake, do things actually improve afterwards (if it happened repeatedly), or do they double down on their bad take? this depends on the definition of a mistake and operates on the assumption that the person being called out has made a mistake, which is often subjective. there are situations where a plaintiff may have unfairly perceived malintent (i'm guilty of this a LOT, getting that chip off my shoulder is a lifelong work), or situations where a defendant might not understand why what they did was wrong. so in either situation, "doubling down" might not necessarily be a result of abject belligerence. for this reason i've never been a fan of heavy application of community moderation, except in the cases of fighting against "abuse of service" types of behaviour, like spamming and flooding. sorry for the tl;dr. | 16:51:19 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
I always measure "good faith" on the reaction of people when called out. Do they acknowledge a mistake, do things actually improve afterwards (if it happened repeatedly), or do they double down on their bad take? * this depends on the definition of a mistake and operates on the assumption that the person being called out has made a mistake, which is often subjective. there are situations where a plaintiff may have unfairly perceived malintent (i'm guilty of this a LOT, getting that chip off my shoulder is a lifelong work), or situations where a defendant might not understand why what they did was wrong (been guilty here too). so in either situation, "doubling down" might not necessarily be a result of abject belligerence. for this reason i've never been a fan of heavy application of community moderation, except in the cases of fighting against "abuse of service" types of behaviour, like spamming and flooding. sorry for the tl;dr. | 16:51:44 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | * this depends on the definition of a mistake and operates on the assumption that the person being called out has made a mistake, which is often subjective. there are situations where a plaintiff may have unfairly perceived malintent (i'm guilty of this a LOT, getting that chip off my shoulder is a lifelong work), or situations where a defendant might not understand why what they did was wrong (been guilty here too). so in either situation, "doubling down" might not necessarily be a result of abject belligerence, but a misunderstanding. for this reason i've never been a fan of heavy application of community moderation, except in the cases of fighting against "abuse of service" types of behaviour, like spamming and flooding. sorry for the tl;dr. | 16:52:08 |
| @ryblade:matrix.org | in any case, that's a bit outside the scope of what i was worried about in that document, but still, i'm not comfortable with the idea of moderators being given the power to literally determine intent in the minds of other people, over limited communication mediums where nuances like body language, tone of voice, etc. are lost. when those very same moderators have the power to close discussions, ban users and sculpt the very society around them, there is a 100% chance that bad decisions will be made, and that such power will ultimately lead to corruption. | 17:06:59 |
