| 24 Nov 2021 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | of course they might decide not to listen, which is why banning is requested as a tool | 10:55:19 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | that is a complicated dynamic, for sure. but the alternative also has its issues; if the two don't function as one, things will fail both ways... moderators will interfere with a mediator's process in some cases, and fail to ban people who refuse the mediation process in other cases | 10:55:35 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | the flipside is that people will not be open because of the ban threat | 10:55:44 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | 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:pixie.town | 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 |
