This sounds like a very slippery slope. Decisions are going to be made. That won’t affect me personally. So my stance and all this is just philosophical at this point.
So I digress. But I really hope we think about what we are doing and how we are treading. Because on the surface it sounds like we want people politics to align with our own.
I agree with many of the concerns voiced here and in particular I find myself in alignment with what @dedguy21 says.
Given how the conversations are going, I completely understand why many people feel frustrated and even hopeless about the process outcome. Nonetheless, I encourage everyone to participate in the process and try to make a positive impact, no matter how unsafe or unwelcome you feel about it right now.
Sounds like you two should talk it out, maybe you can both make some progress. That doesn’t involve me and we’ve moved to think which are no longer pertinent to the discussion here.
We have worked it out. He keeps his politics. I keep mine. We don’t disrespect each other. And quite often we just don’t discuss politics.
He’s lived a life I can’t imagine and has come to the conclusions he has come to. I respect him as an individual even though our politics don’t align.
I think it would be dangerous to silence him because his politics don’t align with mine and hurt my feelings.
And that’s what it sounds like we’re trying to accomplish here, because of course I’m right and he’s wrong.
Excellent, glad to hear you worked it out.
Now if we replace “your uncle” with “everyone here” and remember:
Then it sounds like there is a way forward, that is, when you know your opinion is hurtful to others (and you’re not open to changing it) then you just don’t say it.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Then drop it. But seems like you really do want to re-litigate it
I don’t really need to read these points, because I know first-hand what Jon is like; I was frequently on the receiving end of their abuse. The moderation action absolutely was justified, and frankly well overdue. The perception of an “unfair ban” is entirely that - a perception.
And the current COC doesn’t cover that basic principal…
Respect each other? Covered.
Maybe we should explicitly call out not discussing politics here, and then we’ll all live in harmony like me and my Uncle.
Seems like this issue is solved then, without the need for additional language.
No, I made my concerns clear. I don’t care about Jon’s suspension anymore. I care about the zero-tolerance policy.
Please make an effort to read what you’re replying to, before replying. It’s the second time I’m asking you this.
Good. Respecting other people means not sharing an opinion you know will hurt someone else.
We just discussed politics respectfully, so I don’t know why that has to be explicitly covered. Not all politics are bad and not all political conversations are corrosive; they just frequently end up that way.
“My stubbornness around recent events in the community have caught up with me and recently received a ban. I’m not innocent, but it’s hard to stay impartial when you’re so invested in a project and community.”
Your idea that Jon doesn’t know what they did wrong is not even supported by themselves.
@joepie91 Please, read my post carefully. I wasn’t arguing that Jon’s suspension was unfair. That was not my point at all. I said the moderators’ actions were controversial. And they were. This was debated on multiple platforms, including this one.
My point being, if the moderator’s actions weren’t controversial, then the zero-tolerance policy would make a lot of sense. But this is not the case.
Thank you.
But that’s a problem who decides what is corrosive or not?
And further to that point, who is being corrosive?
Like you’re missing that point.
You don’t even have to worry about it without talking about it. And quite honestly, I’m not sure why this would be the forum to even discuss politics.
There are definitely more appropriate and designated forums to discuss politics. Since here people’s arguments surrounds politics.
And I understand. We want to keep people from being called names being made to feel ashamed about who they are as a person. I’m not sure how that comes up when discussing NixOS, But you definitely eliminate that possibility by banning people who are disrespectful and by removing political topics from the forum.
The moderators, that’s why they’re moderators.
The people who know their opinions are hurtful to others but still choose to be loud and obnoxious about it.
Me either! But it keeps happening, despite those people being told that they are being hurtful. Why do they continue to be hurtful? That is a great question.
This seems very reasonable. And almost standard language you’d find in any Enterprise.
I’m guessing the discussions around moderation might be around implementation. Again based on the language I’ve read I can’t see where anyone would disagree.
Edit: It’s odd my post are being flagged and hidden. None of my post are talking about offensive material just making counter points to another poster who’s post are not being hidden. Maybe this is the concern of being silenced that the dissenters are being so loud about.
Moderator actions are always controversial. That is part of the job of being a moderator - you are necessarily dealing with conflict, and most of the time, at least one person is going to step away from the situation unhappy. The point of good moderation policy is to be deliberate about who this one person is, and preventing the amount of unhappy people from becoming “everyone involved”.
In short: “moderator actions are controversial” is, in and of itself, never an argument for any particular policy, and does not invalidate zero-tolerance policies. Specific concerns can be addressed, but if any appearance of controversy is the extent of your concern, then that is simply not an actionable thing.
I couldn’t disagree more. Many are completely uncontroversial. The affected person (e.g. spammer, troll, etc) might not like the moderator action, of course, but that’s not what controversy means.
I consider controversy to be what happened with Jon’s suspension: it was one of the major reasons for the big crisis in the community and it was debated vigorously across multiple different social platforms (HN, Lobste.rs, Reddit, Matrix, Discourse, etc – hundreds of comments each), which obviously happened in part because of his previously well-respected status. In contrast, I’ve never seen that happen because a spammer was suspended.
That sounds great but it’s not what your actions show, given how you are ignoring multiple people here who are expressing the same concern, yet in the real-time Matrix channel (which many cannot commit to) multiple decisions were changed immediately when only one single person (in the moderator in-group) expressed a concern, without almost any debate in various occasions.
Please take the concern seriously and don’t attack a straw man. This entire thread started with someone saying that the zero-tolerance policy is too harsh. Various people expressed the same concern and suggested a one-warning policy. This concern and suggestion couldn’t be more actionable.
Don’t change this to be about “you are concerned about moderation controversy”, this is a straw man and you know very well this is not what we are asking – it’s just one justification for the concern, among various others that were given.
I’m sorry, but I feel this is being completely unproductive. I don’t think I will engage this topic anymore, especially if you continue to ignore the issue and keep debating endlessly. I think I have been respectful and have argued in good faith, but I don’t consider that we are being heard. If this behavior continues with the governance discussions (and I am hoping it doesn’t), I will not consider the result to be legitimate.
Thank you.
That is exactly the definition of controversy: a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views. The controversy is between the moderator and the moderated.
Yes this is an example of controversy.
You’ve confused the timeline here, the community was already deep into the crisis at the time Jon was banned.
Yes, not with a spammer, but you have seen that happen with a troll.
Where is the proof of this? This is complete conjecture.
Yes and its been explained that you misread the zero tolerance policy:
So what is the actual issue you have?
We have contributors from different countries.
Compared to those and many other languages, English is just barbaric.
Requiring everyone to perfectly speak such a language is already elitistic enough for native speakers, let alone for non-native ones.
And this factoring the fact that extra pronouns were invented very recently, your idea of “entire time in speaking the English language” as a very long amount of time is overwhelmingly misleading.