| 4 Nov 2021 |
 Ellie | * The desire for an explicit set of statutes has been raised several times. I think the one response has been that it invites people to tread right up to the line of acceptable behavior; consistently doing this could very much constitute a problem. | 16:19:14 |
| Ellie | * The desire for an explicit set of statutes has been raised several times. I think one response has been that it invites people to tread right up to the line of acceptable behavior; consistently doing this could very much constitute a problem. | 16:19:21 |
 Jonas Chevalier | I meant it more in contrast to RFC98 who seems super defensive | 16:19:23 |
 jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I'm not really a fan of timed bans, personally, for a few different reasons:
- they perceptually devalue bans from a "last resort" to an "obvious tool", because "it's temporary anyway"
- problematic behaviour does not magically become unproblematic after 48 hours; if the same person still has the same views and same (lack of) adherence to social norms, they will reoffend afterwards, and so the practical result of this is that you're just giving problematic people more 'free airtime'
- it also fails in the other direction; in the rare event that a ban is the event that makes someone go "... fuck. I really was in the wrong" (it does happen!), if the times are set in policy, one cannot be unbanned earlier without at the very least invoking the ire of the community who feel betrayed, and this in turn might make the banned person frustrated and turn their opportunity for reflection into an opportunity for their anger to build further
I only gave a small blip of the idea I had. the timed banned was just to allow time for the other moderation member to agree in a more permanent solution. One of which, could be a permanent ban if they feel like that is the correct course of action. And there would be more transparency around permanent actions | 16:19:26 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jonas Chevalier: I feel like most of the complexity of RFC98 is honestly not in the rules, but rather in the mechanisms - it is essentially an attempt to establish a non-authoritarian, non-hierarchical moderation approach in the context of a world which does the exact opposite | 16:20:22 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | this is complexity that a project with a BDFL would not need to deal with at all | 16:20:38 |
| jonringer | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
it reflects really well how nice Andreas Kling is as a person (if you watched any of his videos) I think that's fine if there's some way to ensure an alignment of values. But I don't think that's the case for nixpkgs. It's been demonstrated that we are polarized on the issue of moderation | 16:20:47 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | as it can operate on 'standard' social assumptions about hierarchies | 16:20:49 |
