| 4 Nov 2021 |
 Jonas Chevalier | eelco mostly cares about technology | 16:32:05 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | 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 | 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 |
| Jonas Chevalier | maybe we should ask him what he wants :p | 16:32:58 |
| jonringer | 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 | 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 | 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 |
| Jonas Chevalier | 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 | as opposed to some more step-wise effort and building incremental consensus | 16:34:33 |
