| 4 Nov 2021 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | (I probably shouldn't have said 'permanent', that was my mistake :p) | 16:30:24 |
 @jonringer:matrix.org | Jonas Chevalier: Again, I think SerenityOS has the benefit of someone being the deciding authority on what values are important. And his presence allows for them to be adhered. We don't really have that in nix | 16:31:18 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | eelco is very "lassez faire" when it comes to community interaction, and we are largely just a collection of nerds making nixpkgs work | 16:31:44 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | eelco mostly cares about technology | 16:32:05 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
A long term ban should have enough "supporting evidence" that the community will also agree with actions taken by the moderation team. I would phrase it differently: a long-term ban should be justifiable to the community - sometimes that means showing receipts for behaviour that everybody agrees is bad, sometimes that means explaining in detail why a seemingly-okay behaviour is actually problematic and they refused to work on it.
but this is true whether or not you enshrine it in policy, really; if you cannot justify your moderation decisions, then you will have an uprising on your hands. I do think there's some value in formalizing this to avoid the "rules don't say we need to justify bans" argument in the worst case, but I don't think it's a crucial pillar of formal moderation policy
| 16:32:17 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
eelco mostly cares about technology And I would say the same for the vast majority of the community | 16:32:20 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | maybe we should ask him what he wants :p | 16:32:58 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I would phrase it differently: a long-term ban should be justifiable to the community - sometimes that means showing receipts for behaviour that everybody agrees is bad, sometimes that means explaining in detail why a seemingly-okay behaviour is actually problematic and they refused to work on it.
but this is true whether or not you enshrine it in policy, really; if you cannot justify your moderation decisions, then you will have an uprising on your hands. I do think there's some value in formalizing this to avoid the "rules don't say we need to justify bans" argument in the worst case, but I don't think it's a crucial pillar of formal moderation policy
sure, 100 small infractions can be as disruptive as a few large infractions. | 16:33:01 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
maybe we should ask him what he wants :p I think it will be along the lines, "for nix to be successful" | 16:33:18 |
 @abathur:matrix.org | It's a bit oblique to this conversation, but I've wondered as this spools out if the RFC process doesn't help ensure part of this trouble in contentious areas by expecting a large up-front investment in staking out (and thus having to defend) a vision for something | 16:34:07 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I would phrase it differently: a long-term ban should be justifiable to the community - sometimes that means showing receipts for behaviour that everybody agrees is bad, sometimes that means explaining in detail why a seemingly-okay behaviour is actually problematic and they refused to work on it.
but this is true whether or not you enshrine it in policy, really; if you cannot justify your moderation decisions, then you will have an uprising on your hands. I do think there's some value in formalizing this to avoid the "rules don't say we need to justify bans" argument in the worst case, but I don't think it's a crucial pillar of formal moderation policy
this is pretty much the issue we have with today's moderation decisions | 16:34:16 |
| @abathur:matrix.org | as opposed to some more step-wise effort and building incremental consensus | 16:34:33 |
| @abathur:matrix.org | * as opposed to some more step-wise effort at building incremental consensus | 16:34:41 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
I think it will be along the lines, "for nix to be successful" probably :) | 16:34:48 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | Jonas Chevalier: that, I can agree with. but I don't think that's a consequence of moderators not wanting to justify their decisions, but rather of "not having a healthily-sized moderation team and so nobody has the energy to do the justification work" | 16:35:04 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | which is one of the main drivers of RFC98 | 16:35:16 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | reducing individual moderation load by having something better and more spread-out than "literally one person who does all the moderation" | 16:35:41 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
reducing individual moderation load by having something better and more spread-out than "literally one person who does all the moderation" According to ryantm, there's at least three: graham, ryan, and eelco | 16:36:43 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | however, it seems that graham is usually the one to be bat phoned | 16:36:56 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | exactly | 16:37:00 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | on paper we have multiple people, but in practice it's mainly graham | 16:37:09 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | yea, Jonas Chevalier and I both believe that having a moderation team, and a sustainable way to contact them are good things. | 16:37:46 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @abathur:matrix.org
It's a bit oblique to this conversation, but I've wondered as this spools out if the RFC process doesn't help ensure part of this trouble in contentious areas by expecting a large up-front investment in staking out (and thus having to defend) a vision for something I think that generally speaking smaller RFCs are better in a lot of cases, but that on this specific topic it doesn't matter; building up a moderation model like this, especially one that structurally diverges from the world in which it exists (namely: being non-hierarchical), requires whole-system analysis | 16:38:20 |
| @abathur:matrix.org | not necessarily saying that you don't need broad analysis and synthesis | 16:39:30 |
| @abathur:matrix.org | but more that if you start with a document where some nontrivial percent of the community can find something that makes them uncomfortable, the discourse around the effort can end up hopelessly poisoned regardless of how ready the authors are to negotiate and address concerns | 16:41:40 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
maybe we should ask him what he wants :p eelco already seems perpetually busy, I'm not sure it's a good idea to expect them to define the end goal for something that they have not shown active interest in :p | 16:41:47 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | especially as it's not clear what the benefit of doing so would be; it can't really be argued to 'represent the community', and so whatever the answer ends up being, it would essentially be an authoritarian decision | 16:42:39 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | it seems more fruitful for me to discuss this among the community, get people aligned on this, understand each other's viewpoints, and build something durable that as many people as possible feel represented by | 16:43:14 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @abathur:matrix.org
but more that if you start with a document where some nontrivial percent of the community can find something that makes them uncomfortable, the discourse around the effort can end up hopelessly poisoned regardless of how ready the authors are to negotiate and address concerns honestly, I agree with the authors here; this is 'necessary conflict'. I'm sure it would be easier to introduce things piecemeal, but IME usually piecemeal processes tend to garner more approval mainly because most people involved do not have the full picture of the end goal and each individual piece looks fine - even if they would disagree with the whole thing that it results in. I think it's better to have all the cards on the table | 16:45:32 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | also because addressing concerns about one part may well resolve issues with another part indirectly | 16:46:08 |
