Discussions on Zulip for governance discussions

Meta
41

No, I am not worried about that.

I worry that there’s an inherent, fundamental and essential fuzziness to any moderation activity. Normally it is ok because the mistake either way is (comparatively) not a big deal. However, in this case we increase the fuzziness (different venue, stricter enforcement, different set of mods), while driving the cost of mistake through the roof.

But what actually worries me and prompted to start this topic, is that this policy just seems …. unnecessary unkind.

Policy where you don’t get to participate if you have an active ban feels fair to me.

Policy where you can participate if you have a ban, but where you can be thrown out of Zulip for any infraction of CoC seems most laudable.

Policy where you can participate if banned but with small but non-zero chance of your ban being escalated to permanent from the entire community feels punitive.

1 Like
42

To attempt to clarify the apparent contradiction:

  • “Zero tolerance policy” refers to an overall policy pertaining to the whole code of conduct; a breach of any of it will be treated harshly, but only for those with a prior record who have been admitted under special conditions as a second chance
  • Separately from that, there is an implicit special case for specific types of behaviour (which cannot be exhaustively defined but do not compromise the entire code of conduct), which may result in an immediate ban; this is not deliberate policy, but rather an implicit component of how moderation works in general
  • Anything not covered by these two cases is subject to the usual “try to de-escalate, assume good faith, mistakes can happen” policy
6 Likes
43

This is a deliberate choice that is part of the compromise that was made; the intent is to change participation for banned users from “cool, free second opportunity, why not?” to a careful consideration of “hmmm, can I participate constructively enough not to make things worse?”.

Admitting previously-banned users has a very real safety cost to the community, and this shifts some of that cost to the banned user in question, instead of putting all of it on the shoulders of those harmed by them. It is not unreasonable to expect someone with a problematic history to make an extra effort to be on their best behaviour, commensurate with the costs they’ve imposed on the broader community.

Bluntly put: the alternative would be that nobody with a ban would be able to participate at all, in any way.

11 Likes
44

Why isn’t the one-warning policy that @tmarkov suggested a better compromise?

You already made sure that no sockpuppeting is possible, so abusing the one-warning policy would not gain them anything compared to the zero-tolerance policy. Especially since the moderators can already edit, reject and remove posts according to the CoC.

1 Like
45

Because there is no desire to have people with a record of abuse continue to abuse other folks in any quantity, and the needs of those who have been harmed frankly weigh more strongly than those who have been doing the harming.

9 Likes
46

How would they be harmed if they would only get one chance to harm and the harmful post is removed?

1 Like
47

I do not intend to debate the fundamental mechanics here of how harm works, honestly, that’s something that an entire introductory course could easily be dedicated to.

I’m just addressing policy questions (since I was involved in the drafting of them, and other folks are busy with other aspects of getting this going). The drafting of this policy involved quite a few people with community management experience, and such decisions were based on that experience.

10 Likes
48

The plan is to have a constituent assembly to set up a community-based government for NixOS. To prepare for its launch, and for it to start working, it needs to have some rules and policies in place - and the foundation (with the help of respected community members) has set up a good overall structure (even if we might disagree on some aspects).

However, once the assembly is set up and operational, it should be able to change the rules it operates under.

1 Like
49

I’m interested in how “Protection” is applied though. We are past the age of institutional discrimination, what applies to the majority inherently applies to minorities today.

I am saying this as a minority who appreciates the paths that lead to my equality and having a voice that is equally heard as others.

Fist point I should make, this forum’s default is an anonymous status, so no one knows that you’re a minority unless you call attention to it, which you do have the right do; but how would they otherwise know to discriminate?

You have the right to be who you are and not be discriminated against which I agree with and fully support.

I’m still not understanding how the current CoC which applies to everyone doesn’t help protect everyone. And why the need to specifically call out protections for minorities? I’m just not sure how the current CoC doesn’t do that already while still being applied to everyone equally.

So I need to understand personally what this protection looks like? How is it being applied?.

Respect is one a pillar of the CoC, so what is being added on top of that that specifically protects minorities. Honestly, it might just be semantics that is throwing people off. I think a clear definition of what it looks like what it means would go pretty far to calming people down, but so far everything has been vague.

And I’m saying this as a minority, but as someone who experienced potential abuse of a “Protected Class” in the Enterprise world. Specifically when it comes to a dissenting opinion. I know this is anecdotal and I hate that I might be helping prejudiced people, but since I’ve seen it, I have to mention that some “protected classes” think that the only reason why you’re questioning or pushing back on their opinion is because they are a protected class, which honestly mostly isn’t true, just don’t like the idea.

Definitely should be a “safe space” Where we Encourage and Welcome Minority Participation. It should be known that this is a safe space and I don’t want to bang the drum on the same point, but I think people are getting lost in the semantics of the language specifically because inherently “protecting minorities” means we’re doing something extra. What extra is being done that the current CoC doesn’t already cover.

I think that would go a long way in helping people how it affects everyone in the community. Again, I’m saying this as a minority myself who understand definitely pre-1960s. It was important because literally discrimination was legal but we’re post-legal discrimination so I’m just trying to understand what protections looks like in today’s world.

50

And again I’m saying this is someone who hates discrimination. I have been affected by it. To this day I’m still affected by it. But there are laws in place now that make it intolerable.

Specific to this form, I’m wondering what extra needs to be done that doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.

51

We are certainly not. Tell this to a woman or trans person trying to get healthcare in many US states.

Also no, but I’m not going to elaborate much on that one.

There are many ways to pick up on things, especially thru writing. The logic “I only know it if I see it!” is certainly bad. In addition, a user may have an avatar that gives something away or may have the same handle other places that make things about them obvious.

I already replied to this in the other thread where you copy and pasted this exact same response from: NixOS Foundation board announcement: Moderation concerns - #53 by dedguy21

What isn’t clear about that?

People can potentially abuse a lot of systems, but the potential or actual abuse of those systems does not negate the need for those systems in the first place.

but you are banging the same drum over and over and over again.

Yes, we must work to build the same structures for marginalized people that exist for the majority. The work for the majority is done, but for marginalized people it is not.

It is still important because while we may have enshrined rights for some, we have not enshrined rights for all. We should work to enshrine rights for all.

10 Likes
52

To answer this concretely: the CoC is only the ‘specification’ part of the process, essentially specifying the intent. We have had this for a while, but what has been historically problematic is the ‘implementation’ part; failing to actually uphold that process due to a combination of factors, some of which are directly related to governance issues, some of them indirectly.

A selection of the issues that have played a role in failing to uphold these values:

  • Insufficient moderation capacity (in part due to people leaving due to burnout)
  • Insufficient ability for not just moderators, but the community more broadly, to identify harmful behaviours, especially those that disproportionately affect marginalized folks
  • Insufficient (perception of) mandate ‘from up top’ to actually enforce these standards
  • Insufficient procedures and understanding for how to deal with rule lawyering

That is not an exhaustive list, but it gives an impression of how multi-faceted this problem is, and why it has become one of the tasks for a governance body to sort out. Put simply, the ongoing widespread governance issues have disproportionately affected the safety of marginalized folks who very much still are subject to systemic discrimination. But it is not the only issue on the agenda, and that is for good reason.

5 Likes
53

The moderation team are not robots, and will be amenable to case-by-case reasoning. We don’t need to rebuild ethics from first principles to understand that people who pollute our community with bullshit need to be banned. This isn’t that hard.

6 Likes
54

If someone who has been banned refuses to come back despite the olive branch offered, that’s their free choice. If such persons are too afraid they won’t be able to abide by the Code of Conduct, then they should simply not participate in this community.

4 Likes
55

You’d be surprised by what some people consider hateful. So the answer is, yes.

If those who disdain basic pro-social behaviors like avoiding hate speech aren’t comfortable with the way this community is moderated, then I can only applaud the moderation team and encourage them to continue their good work.

6 Likes
56

"What the majority who raise this concern completely miss is that the status quo societal structures ensure that their rights are always there. What “protecting minorities” means is that there are structures in place to make sure their voices are heard and their experiences are not questioned into silence. That is, we must ensure that the structure that already exists for the majority also exists for minorities if what is desired is that minorities participate.

The difference is that we don’t have to work for the structure that is already there for the majority, but we do have to work to build the one for minorities."

*** On my phone and I can’t find the quote block button…

Again, it’s not very clear what the structure you are talking about looks like. What does this extra structure look like?
And why does the current structure not also work for minorities?

I’m saying this as a minority and I’m not clear about what you’re trying to accomplish with what you’re saying. And again I’m not being facetious I’m not being malicious. I really am trying to understand what it looks like.

And why the current CoC isn’t enough. If someone calls me the n-word here they’re getting banned. If someone disrespects anyone here they’re getting banned. So what extra do you need?

We’re not going to be able to prevent harassment. We can only stop it immediately. So again I’m just trying to figure out what extra looks like here.

1 Like
57

Please read my comment above where this was addressed.

3 Likes
58

For now it looks something like: having specific, named seats at the table. removing comments which constantly demand answer and questions other’s experiences (sealioning as we know it), removing discriminatory and hateful posts towards people, and if necessary, banning people who can’t understand that. That isn’t the whole picture by far, but its a start.

If the current structures did work, we wouldn’t be here. But here we are.

3 Likes
59

“For now it looks something like: having specific, named seats at the table. removing comments which constantly demand answer and questions other’s experiences (sealioning as we know it), removing discriminatory and hateful posts towards people, and if necessary, banning people who can’t understand that. That isn’t the whole picture by far, but its a start.”

I live in a heavily populated pro-Trump area, though the overwhelming culture is Left-Leaning as a State. When BLM movement happened, a lot of neighbors were upset. They started putting up “Blue Live Matters” posters and stickers all over the place. Most reasonable people know that’s a reaction to their discomfort to what black people here were protesting. But would that be considered hateful, disrespectful or derogatory? To me it’s ignorant but I wouldn’t go as far as to block people that posted that.

So even when you say you’re moving discriminatory hateful post people and definitely blue lives matter in retaliation to Black lives matter could have been seen as hateful, disrespectful and discriminatory. I don’t think we could cross that line.

1 Like
60

So I guess the point is how do we decide or to find what is hateful discriminatory and disrespectful?

Again I’m just a guy who likes the code. I think this is way too political for me, but on a philosophical level. I am questioning the implementation here.

1 Like