I think this should stay listed and locked for transparency. The original question was a valid one, and there was an important response from @djacu . Bike shedding is useless but total censorship is not the solution. Unless there is a specific rule about not discussing governance/non-technical topics related to NixOS on this forum?
There were definitely points made about the logo not being updated on all platforms and on how long the logo should be/was planned to be up, which while being useless to you is actually useful information to me. The fact that it devolved at the end is grounds for locking, not unlisting, at least in my book.
Also it doesnât prevent people from accessing the thread, since anyone who accessed it once can still link in blog posts etc. So the only thing you are doing is limiting access to only those people that want to cause problems.
Not relevant for moderation:
Wasting other peopleâs time is a two way street on a forum, btw. Literally just donât read it if you donât want to. Itâs not like an AI pull request that takes an hour to process.
I havenât read said blog posts and I donât intend to. I think that celebrating pride is a good thing. I also think transparency is a good thing. And for it to actually mean anything, extending the logo change should have the whole community behind it. Keeping something like this behind closed doors and refusing to rectify a minor communication mistake makes it more about a political statement a board wants to make, which is hollow in comparison to a community.
For crying out loud, setting a poll to ask the community if they want to extend it would be a huge public relations win and would probably succeed. And then everyone knows itâs actually the whole community thatâs behind it! The point of pride is the community, not rainbow logos!
There is no âtotal censorshipâ. Some posts have been hidden because they were flagged, tit for tat between some of the participants. Thatâs the first sign of a thread rapidly devolving.
The time being wasted includes that of moderators processing the flurry of flags as the thread rapidly devolves. That was the motivation for slow-mode. Unlisting was to stop it being an attractive nuisance to those not already involved and attracting more new posters fanning the flames.
You make a case for locking, and that remains an option. Any legitimately useful and valuable points will still be valid in 24h time, should someone have one to make.
Not âtotalâ censorship, but censorship nontheless. It makes the entire thread unavailable to the public, which is suppression. I donât see what the purpose of it is beyond image control.
If youâd read that thread, youâd know that it isnât democracy, so a public poll isnât the way to handle it. It is the job of the marketing team to make such decisions, and if there are issues with those decisions, you can take them to the SC.
I donât know why people tends to use some words like âcensorshipâ to victimize themselves, but actally that is not the case.
In fact, LGBTQ+ people are the people actually under supression.
It is not wrong for people to show the support for them.
For the previous thread situation, I think moderation is inevitable.
Also I am glad that SC support the marketing teamâs decision.
It is just logo theme change, not very big deal, but it is a good thing, I hope people understand that.
We better focus more energy on improving NixOS.
People are improving the logo design, really appreciate that.
I am not the victim. I can still see the thread. Yes LGBT+ people need representation. I like the idea of the logo time being extended, with proper recording in minutes of course, whether or not a poll as I suggested is done. That is neither here nor there when it comes to the visibility of the (properly moderated) thread to the public (the real victim). The thread should be locked and visible. That is my only concrete position on moderation. I would not have had an issue with locking as I donât want a million notifications of hate speech or beleaguered reiterations. I am not anti moderation. I am not claiming victimhood. My contribution to the thread was insignificant and my feelings arenât hurt about that.
Good moderation involves removing hate and unhelpful comments and limiting write access to sane individuals. That does not require completely unlisting (privating) the whole discussion, since plenty of the discussion was perfectly fine and not hate. Taking down a thread for reasons other than rule violations on OPâs part is probably censorship. Locking a thread is only moderation.
Actually the definitions of censorship and moderation overlap enough that plenty of moderation is also censorship. Itâs mostly just connotations and details that make the difference. Like the difference between government and tyranny. Different people have different opinions.
My problem is that statements by members of the team and other helpful answers were censoredmoderated for no reason (not rule violations), as well as the original question which was completely valid (and not given a straight answer at first). My first comment only was meant to throw my support in a lighthearted way. As far as I can see, the decision to private was prejudicially and arbitrarily done on leu of (in my opinion) the much less severe (and less annoying in terms of notifications) option of locking. That is an opinion, which I donât think there is a rule against my having.
See definition from dictionary above and think for 30 seconds before replying to me about âitâs not censorshipâ, I have said all I will. There is no point in arguing semantics with people who use absolutist no-true-scottsman definitions and I am tired of being notified by this thread.
As stated, posts have been hidden due to community flags reaching a sufficient threshold according to discourseâs scoring system. Those posts were, at best, unhelpful, and this is community moderation. Iâm glad you agree.
The moderation team does review those flags, and can reject them (and take other actions) when it appears theyâre being misused. Again, as stated, when it starts to look like people are taking sides and flagging things they disagree with more than things that are inherently problematic, that is a good sign that the discussion as a whole is not going anywhere productive.
Slow-mode is then an interim step before closing the thread entirely. It was a choice, and in this instance I opted for that interim step, rather than a full closure. This is not a permanent state. If and when the thread is closed, it might also be relisted, if thereâs some view that the remaining content has particular value for the historical record.
Youâre free to disagree with these decisions. I moved the discussion of those decisions to this category, as per the policy, and they have been explained. Youâve stated your problem clearly enough. I agree there is no point in arguing semantics further.