| 7 Nov 2021 |
 Irenes | that's the philosophical nuance here | 13:03:41 |
 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 | 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 set a profile picture. | 20:42:48 |
| ryblade changed their display name from ryblade to ryblade (you/your). | 21:32:49 |
| 22 Nov 2021 |
 hexa | https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671 | 16:00:06 |
| ryblade | In reply to @hexa:lossy.network
https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671 whoa | 16:12:32 |
| piegames | There's been some drama around the core team a few weeks ago, but wow | 16:13:57 |
| ryblade | absolutely nuts | 16:14:31 |
| ryblade | wonder if this is in response to the ashley williams stuff or not | 16:19:59 |
| hexa | also https://mobile.twitter.com/adamhjk/status/1462812661356265473 | 16:26:22 |
| hexa | * 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 | 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 | 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 | * 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | * 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 |
