My reply was to @chrism
Would it work for you if we tried to give the hypothetical future person some practical suggestions of what they could do to express their views that would help reconcile different world views and opinions, instead of just exercising incessant questioning that doesnât even usually address the previous answers given to the same questions?
Would you be willing to help give these participants the same suggestions as time permits?
I am hoping this might work better than more drastic measures. The first step is that people have been invited back (mostly). Can we all try to work in good faith, and try to just help focus and redirect. Weâll never win the battles that were fought before. They are an unwinnable game. The only winnable game is for each participant to realize they are trying to help each other use their shared resources of time, attention, and ability to contribute without destroying the other personâs ability to do the same.
So, just asking questions is like trying to solve a puzzle with only one piece of it. Letâs help people find and employ the other pieces of the puzzle.
Why would anyone want this?
For those opposed to making a place for marginalized people, I hope Iâve summed it up with as much brevity as possible. If youâre still opposed to that, then I donât know what to tell you except that youâre wrong.
3 Likes
It would not, apologies. I am only interested in having an outcome perceived as legitimate, not in changing minds.
1 Like
Itâs my view that if we as people come together around any work of any kind, here, or anywhere, we will be stuck with the same dilemma. Any time that I work with other people, I will have to discuss, and decide together the terms under which you and I agree together that we will do this work, unless we are willing to defer to another authority.
So, I donât know how we could solve this problem any other way than to reconcile the differences in a way that the people present agree to. If they agree, it is legitimate. If they do not, then it is lacking the agreement of some of the parties.
If you think this is some long game to coerce people to change their minds, I respectfully disagree. This is not what I have seen at all.
1 Like
Sure, but that doesnât require trying to persuade people about basic values or philosophical norms. If it involves convincing people, the most likely territory
for persuasion is going to be what compromises are acceptable, what measures will assuage different parties worriesâ not so much the ground of those worries themselves. Changing minds here is more likely to be productive if we mean negotiating rather than debating.
I think also restraint when it comes to trying to persuade people of basic principles reduces the risk of derailment. In that respect I think you and chrism are perhaps aligned here.
1 Like
His question was about taking action against people who might be seen as employing a âsealioningâ tactic.
My suggestion was to politely offer those participants suggestions about how they could be more constructive. Ask them to do more than just ask questions.
Those are the important points I am making this discussion, in my view, fwiw.
Itâs my view that we are all responsible for the quality of discourse here. This is why I wrote
So, just asking questions is like trying to solve a puzzle with only one piece of it. Letâs help people find and employ the other pieces of the puzzle.
Itâs ok if people do not agree with me. But this is why I asked @chrism if he thought he could live with that as an approach to integrating the discussion and outcomes of people working together to create co-governance.
I didnât want to imply or insinuate. So I instead simply ask him âcould this work for you?â and he answered. He is definitely entitled not to agree with me of course. Perhaps as this discussion evolves he or others will eventually agree with what emerges from there, and there is a chance I would likely be happy with that too. Weâll see what happens.
I recommend that if what I am suggesting doesnât work, to continue to respectfully discuss, and itâs possible that a good solution will emerge. It doesnât have to come from me, of course.
1 Like
I would like to emphasize that there is a strong focus on de-escalation and conflict resolution in the moderation policy for the governance Zulip. The moderation exists as a last resort when situations are not otherwise resolvable; the âzero-toleranceâ policy applies to those with prior suspensions only.
âMaking mistakesâ is not a problem. Getting things wrong is not a problem. It only becomes a problem when you refuse to participate in de-escalation and/or ignore directives on your behaviour. If you do that, you make a choice - it doesnât happen accidentally.
16 Likes
The CoC does not say that: it heavily implies that you will be permanently banned on your first mistake (potentially). If what you say is true, then the CoC should reflect it. Otherwise, the policy can be misunderstood and some people might not want to participate as a result.
Also, I would argue that this is still too harsh: Jon Ringerâs suspension was controversial and I think many people would like him to be given a fair chance at a clean start.
Threatening with a zero-tolerance policy is a chilling effect that would likely prevent him from expressing his opinions.
2 Likes
Can you reference the specific section of the CoC you are referring to? As the announcement post does state this.
Giving a second chance to people is precisely why the policy exists to admit them. But the safety of those who have suffered from them is also important, and that is why there is a zero-tolerance policy. The policy as it stands is already a carefully-considered compromise.
1 Like
- âThe moderation team has the right and responsibility (âŚ) to ban temporarily or permanently any contributors (âŚ)â
The words âsuspendâ, âsuspendedâ or âsuspensionâ do not even appear in the CoC.
2 Likes
Yes, this is correct, and that right and responsibility exists. It does not state âon the first offenseâ anywhere. The focus on de-escalation is deliberately informally specified; it means that this policy cannot be misused through rule-lawyering.
(Note that you are quoting the normal community CoC, which is not the one that will apply on the governance Zulip. But the concept of moderators ultimately having judgment call authority remains the same.)
11 Likes
Looking on Zulip, it seems that it will use a different CoC than normal:
Before joining the conversation, please make sure to make yourself familiar with the following documents - they are different from what you might be used to:
As such, the specific texts being discussed here might end up somewhat different on Zulip.
That said, I think tough punishments are overall much more likely to prevent honest participation, than they are to stop bad-faith acting.
As an example from the world of FOSS, there has been long-standing anxiety amongst many companies about using GPL-licensed code - including in situation where it should be perfectly fine, because they fear the severe potential consequences, and become overly extra-cautious.
A one-mistake, no warning, perma-ban from NixOS, would have the exact same effect. Because of this, I think a one-warning-then-ban policy would in fact produce a better quality discussion.
I have trouble imagining situations where allowing a single warning would be so bad that itâs worth accepting the potential chilling effect. If anyone is just incapable of arguing civilly, or in good faith, theyâd still get banned quickly. People attacked by them would still be protected.
2 Likes
To reiterate once again, the zero-tolerance policy only applies to participants with prior suspensions, who have already received previous moderation feedback and additional chances. It is not a general policy.
11 Likes
It does not state anything else either. So the possibility for it being applied at the first offense exists.
Focusing on de-escalation is great, but thatâs not what Iâm arguing about. Itâs not ârule-laweringâ to be concerned about being permanently banned on the first offense, which seems to be allowed according to the CoC.
Thatâs not what the announcement post seems to say. The announcement post says "Zulip will be moderated to stay in line with the CoC ". Or maybe I misunderstood it then. Perhaps this could be clarified?
To clarify, does that refer to feedback for their behavior on zulip, or would their existing suspension itself count the feedback.
Yes, and this is an option that is deliberately left available for cases where people are overwhelmingly clearly acting maliciously, as is standard in community moderation.
The CoC functionally provides carte blanche to moderators, which they need to moderate effectively. This is broadly true of moderation anywhere. The code of conduct does not bind moderators, and it barely binds users; its purpose is to communicate values and expectations. It does not restrict what moderators are allowed to do, to begin with.
That is an error in the post. Iâll report it, and I assume that it will be rectified soon, thanks.
2 Likes
It applies to any user who is suspended in other community venues (and potentially also those with past suspensions, I am not 100% clear on that one). The prior feedback is the feedback that they will have received in connection to that suspension; to my knowledge, it has long been established policy to (privately) inform users of the reason they were suspended or banned.
1 Like
In that case, I think my point that a one warning policy would produce a better quality discussion still stands. As is, the chilling effect will exists for the people currently suspended. One warning and then ban will produce a better discourse - no chilling effect - while still protecting vulnerable people.
1 Like
Ok, I will not argue about this anymore since Iâve already expressed my concerns. I would just please ask you to try being clearer, because youâve just confirmed my concern (although youâre implying it wonât be abused, which sounds good but in some instances, some people might disagree), yet you previously said:
the âzero-toleranceâ policy applies to those with prior suspensions only.
Which seems to contradict what youâve just said. That said, I understand itâs kind of difficult to communicate appropriately since some people (like me) might read things more literally than others and this is a fuzzy area. In fact, thatâs a big part of the whole issue weâre having 
In any case, thank you for clarifying!