It would be interesting to analyze the “trust levels” people doing the flagging that leads to the post hiding, and compare it to the model that the discourse project created, and believe to be reflective of how a community can collectively decide about content
We could just declare that every reader decides for themselves, which is optimal for the freedom of each individual. However the byproduct of that has proven to be destructive to:
- The people who volunteer their time to moderate
- People who come to the community looking for interaction, information and knowledge about Nix, nixpkgs, Nixos, and even how our org operates
It costs these people large amounts of time and energy when every comment stands, and then discussions devolve into tit-for-tat power struggles as we have seen recently.
I think it’s worth asking if we think the model above created by discourse works, if we can think that people who have earned “trust” in that model, in this forum, are qualified to co-govern the discussion content of their peers here. Or, is it not a good fit, and why?
Are the hidden comments an effective “voice of the community”? Or are they just contingents of people doing battle in via the forum feature? And if the latter, why does/doesn’t the “trust level” work to help assure that the majority of the time when posts are flagged, most people acting in good faith, and with experience in the community would agree that there is a rationale reason why it should be hidden or moderated? Who is doing what to whom, and why, and how? The data is actually present in discourse, and we should take a look IMHO (if we are not already doing so).
I do not blame/criticize the moderators at all for any of the above, and I support your decision making around interactions happening here. The above is meant as a suggestion for how we might analyze the hidden posts issue, and have some insight on it.