The moderation log has since been updated after deliberations in the moderation team.
If you want to discuss the ban specifically, please note that we have a policy in place, about where that discussion needs to happen. Further interaction on this particular subthread will be considered off-topic.
Second this. The usual approach to moderating public spaces is to not allow sensitive discussion at all: not as a policy of censorship, but as a policy of not burning out the entire moderation team within a week.
NixOS moderation team actually facilitates difficult conversations, and imo they are doing an excellent job here, given the inherent complexity of the problem and the sheer amount of hard work this requires.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
To clarify the flagging you are seeing: there is some combination of users, trusted users, and limits that will have this effect when people hit the “flag” button under the messages. The exact limitations and whose flag is weighted how is a configurable setting. You are likely seeing not the direct action of a moderator, but the result of such flagging by regular users. (though, someone can correct me if i’m wrong)
Let me also add that I do not think that this muting incident sent a troubling message as mentioned in the original post, but actually sent a message that moderation can be applied equally and fairly to everyone.
I believe you intended to post in the other topic.
I could see that message being validly posted as on-topic in either of these discussions, as it broaches the intersection of them.
Occam’s razor has joined the chat
Its fine if a general rule needs to be radified on the spot, and its fine to ban-then-figure-it-out over a couple days. But after a couple bans absolutely need to follow some kind of rubrick to avoid discrimination and picking favorites. Rules should be applied uniformly, with evidence of that rule being broken.
I think a rule that a user should be banned from a conversation if/when they make a bad-faith counterpoint (scarcasm, personal attack, etc) to an argument would help this situation. This means not only scarcasm, blatant staw man arguments, false dichotomies, etc without apology when corrected. And while sealioning/baiting is much harder to confirm, they do fall under near this; Moderators would have to use judgment on whether or not an argument was made in bad faith but I think that is within their jurisdiction to do.
I disagree with Jon. I have searched Matrix, Discord, and Discourse, and have read each message in context. I’m still looking for a bannable offence because disagreement alone dosn’t make him deserve a 6 week ban. If he does deserve a ban, the evidence should be presented.
If anyone stays banned for 6 weeks with no rule broken, then this truly is the beginning of the unraveling of the nix community.
No, moderators should have discretion to moderate as human persons and not merely hot-blooded rule-applying algorithims. We don’t need to have a list of every possible bad word someone could say, we don’t need an exhaustive set of every possible misbehavior. The moderation team must act in the name of the common good, and be free to make judgement calls.
But if JonRinger stays banned for 6cmonths with no rule broken,
Brief note because I think typos like these can quickly cause misunderstandings in heated debates like this: According to moderation/moderation-log.md at 2ebb1fa9267045db77d589b9ecac840e05f71463 · NixOS/moderation · GitHub, the ban is
“for 6 weeks (until 2024-06-10)”, not months.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Would you allow that there are more subtle ways than these examples to be arguing in bad faith, or more generally to be disruptive or unwelcoming?
You can indulge in pedantry all you want, but my criteria are pretty clear: if Jon Ringer stays banned (EDIT sloppy wording on my part, sorry: I meant if his ridiculous ban is not reverted ASAP, with apologies from and/or consequences for those who enacted and enabled it) and this request (or, I guess, an attemped victory lap) is satisfied, then this organization is irrepairably broken. That would make me very sad.
Further edit (slow mode, sorry!): this is not about political camps, not for me anyway. It’s about simple organizational hygiene and compartmentalization. The madness just needs to stop, which means the adults in the room must step in. Except so far I see no such adults.
What we need to address right now is a structural problem in our organization, not anyone’s problem. Until then, there is no point directing these problems to any single person, especially just to show your anger.
Likewise, what we need is a resolution of disputes between all parties, rather than continuing to take sides. Does Jon Ringer take more power than cafkafk in this regard (now)? I would expect no. Still does cafkafk takes more power than Jon Ringer? Still no. So what’s the point of this decision?
Also Jon Ringer will not stay banned, as the moderation log states, he is banned for 6 weeks, and this decision has not be changed yet.
I noticed earlier and it did give me a pause… as “instigator of the Anduril debacle” is put there as a positive highlight, apparently. Still, so far I haven’t seen enough to actively dispute the request (I haven’t been looking too much). I mean, I’m not convinced that these crises would be more dangerous if they had ability to push/merge.
I read that as a dry way of getting out ahead of a potential objection… not a lot of people would be earnestly proud of a ‘debacle’.
I don’t wish to defend Jon at all (personally I disagree with a lot of what he’s said), but using the fact that this person is using the fact that they caused this debacle as a badge of honour sounds like “willfully furthering the division in the community”.
The purpose was to be upfront about it so that it wouldn’t seem as if I had hidden it in any way, same for my corporate ties. This is by no means a victory lap either, I can tell nixpkgs has slowed down, and I feel it is only reasonable I lend a hand.
Here are my views on the moderation issue, maybe a bit off-topic, but I am not sure where else to post it.
I like the quote “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. This is how you build trust. While it is impossible to write down every single possible situation, you do need some general guidelines to persuade others. Reading some of the threads, it makes me feel the moderation team is exhausted and treats some of the legitimate (IMO) requests for detailed moderation guideline as trolls and dismiss them. Some of the examples in rfc-evidence/rfc_evidences_experiences.md at master · nrdxp/rfc-evidence · GitHub does not inspire confidence either, especially when the author was banned subsequently without any justification (yet).
Another question I want to ask is about the approach of moderation. If the goal of moderation is to prevent conflict from escalating, I think it is generally sufficient to have temporary bans (several hours) and limited to a certain channel/post, and only have a broader ban when the individual tries to open another thread elsewhere to continue the conflict. Only when this cannot solve the issue, longer bans should be issued. I don’t quite understand the benefit of a prolonged ban across all the official communication channels, as this is just pushing the individual to unofficial channels where the moderation team cannot reach. This just punishment.
Seriously, how will a 6 weeks ban for someone who “willfully furthering the division in the community” fix the problem? Not saying his behavior does not warrant a ban (duration is up for debate), I just feel that the ban backfires terribly and impossible to work when there are alternative communication channels.