Someone pointed out that the recently adopted CoC FAQ states:
Contributor Covenant only applies in project spaces and when an individual is representing a project. Your conduct outside of these situations is not governed by the code of conduct.
Revisiting srid. Knowing now that he was misguided in posting a public poll about the state of his moderation, what do you think was the catalyst that lead him to that misguided action?
[I deleted my own reply by accident! Re-typing …]
This is important IMO. We can’t (and I’m glad we don’t) have a rule that the reasons for a moderation decision have to be made public. They might be confidential, not only because of embarrassment to an individual (although I guess that’s the most likely reason) but also for all sorts of other moral reasons and also legal reasons.
Or maybe logical consistency is just more important to some folks than others. Also curious why this post hasn’t been blocked like all the other supposedly “imflammatory” posts in this thread. This seems a bit more deliberate than some of those 
To address your obviously sarcastic point, so if someone feels hurt or threatened by something of the correct persuasion, it is encumbant on the community to protect them, but if they are of the undesirable persuasion then it’s cool to ridicule them and imply they have mental health issues?
I agree that @polygon 's post (and it’s non-flagging) reads like a raw and undisguised expression of the general problem in this forum.
And as another contributors pointed out, maybe the flagging feature is not helpful to the moderation team’s work as the passive aggressive nature that often goes along with (cheap and anonymous) flagging not only gives cause to injury, but also to suspicion.
Funnily, the absolute harmless comment itself who bore this insight is flagged and hidden now. Lol.
This makes the moderation team’s work considerably harder, because they (even though a discourse feature), are now obviously subject to all scrutiny arising from the abuse of the flagging feature, by extension of organ-responsibility.
So yes, accountability is important, but more so may be even a general vision and thought process about sane and safe communication design.
Flagging is probably not one, and maybe not even emoji reactions, if you really thing through the fact that in Srid’s poll 60% of a sizeable body of participants seemed to disagree with the ban decision, while in this forum (anecdotally based on the heart reactions), one might feel echoed into believing that there is majority support for the ban.
All this to uncover the obvious: the moderation team itself hasn’t, as of yet, found a suitable, trust-inspiring, integrating and reconciliatory response to the concerns raised throughout the ongoing discussion.
And the task seems to keep growing. I wish the mod team wisdom and a lucky hand and hope they’ll find the strength to systemically address the issues uncovering before our eyes.
Perhaps if you had been more willing to presume goodwill from your interlocutor, you would have seen that
was a response to
i.e., the (sarcastic, yes) suggestion was to employ a psychologist to analyze Srid’s motivations, not to fix some implied mental health issue of tgunnoe’s.
This exchange does indeed illustrate a general problem, but perhaps not the problem you were intending to highlight.
agree to disagree, that’s not how it reads at all
Instead of dunking, why not actually elaborate your point, if you have one?
No dunk was intended. My point is what I opened the post with: presuming lack of goodwill leads to perceiving lack of goodwill, in a vicious cycle. This is a sensitive topic, passions are flaring, and it’s fine for people to express themselves passionately (if respectfully). But in order for that to work, we need to acknowledge each other’s value and not be looking around every corner for someone trying to persecute you for wrongthink—because if you presume it, you will find all the evidence you need to convince yourself, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.
These various moderation-related threads have had a lot of that, it seems to me, and not enough pausing to consider the best ways something might be interpreted. If the question is ‘why isn’t this post flagged?’ for example, is your first impulse to find the evil thing in the community that permits this post while rejecting others? Or could it be to find the good (or at least neutral) thing that this post does but is absent in others? Do you presume persecution and unfairness, or do you presume that someone else has a different perspective and try to understand it? Same question, different attitudes, different outcomes for likelihood of reconciliation of the community.
All things considered, I genuinely appreciate the thoughful response, please allow me a chance to respond to some of your points to hopefully clarify my position…
Agreed, however I also believe in honesty in difficult conversations, and after years of seeing the same general trend with no real solution, my good faith has honestly been totally exhausted. I would be lying if I said otherwise.
Again agreed, and I really don’t intend to persecute anyone. It’s not my bag, personally. I am and have always been interested in this community for technical reasons, and I find the political aspects draining and unrewarding personally. It isn’t my intention to see anyone banned or punished.
However, from my own point of view, it does seem there are some very real biases that exist that are not being properly addressed and indeed are being systematically dismissed any and every time a member of the community attempts to address them. Further, these issues, at least the ones I have had exposure too, only seem to bias in one direction, which is the root of my concern.
It is my belief that good leaders are rare, and I am more than willing to extend copious amounts of grace to those who attempt to step up. What I am not willing to support, however, is an attitude which boils down to, “I’m right, and if you disagree I will simply ban you.”
In my view, It’s more or less fine to have that attitude as a regular community member; it is your perogative, but for a leadership position I find it inappropriate. Further, I feel it is a mark of bad leadership when someone is unwilling to at least consider their own biases, especially when being critical of others.
Also agree. I would simply say that, from my perspective at least, part of the problem is that I have tried to do just that, and each and every time I’ve been met with a wall of utter resistence that seems unwilling to advance beyond their own narrow worldview. Indeed, the impression I have gotten several times is that any opposition should just be exhausted until they literally just give up.
This may create an illusion of consensus or closure, but in reality it sometimes seems almost intentional. Human beings have limitations, and it is far easier to fluster your opponent into an ineffective angry rant and proceed to character assasinate them than it is to understand them. We’d be lying if we pretend this isn’t a factor.
Unequivocally no. I do not presume to know anything about the intentions of others. All I can speak to are the general trends that I myself, and others have pointed out. I am very interested in alleviating my ignorance, in as far as that is possible, and I make real effort to attempt to understand the viewpoints of others. That said, I do not believe all viewpoints are equal or valid, and part of my issue here is that I simply cannot understand the rationale behind a lot of these decisions, and any time I inquire, it seems the response is more or less, “that’s the way it is, deal with it.” Although never that bluntly, thankfully.
This is a programming community after all, I would presume that we are generally more interested in logically sound ideas than the general public would be. However, I am failing to find a logically consistent thread here at all. Again, as I have said, I am more than willing to extend grace, and I realize that mistakes and oversights are commonplace. I am also freely willing to admit the possibility that it is me who is mistaken. I’m not upset if things don’t go my way, and it really doesn’t bother me personally.
I really feel more compelled to speak on behalf of other members of the community, who I know have hit the same wall I have, and yet seem reluctant to speak up, giving an illusion of consensus where one does not exist. If I can, I’d like to express the shared frustration in a way that is hopefully productive, but also, as I said in the beginning, my patience has been spread fairly thin at this point. And if things continue in this way, the most likely response is that I will simply resign once again.
But this is all meta, it seems we can never really get into the meat of the issue without somebody getting blocked or silenced, which I guess is the best way I can concisely express the issue. I’m more than willing to consider the possibility that perhaps in my current position, I am simply not equiped to express the problem in a productive manner, but for the sake of the community at large and those I feel are not recieving a fair voice, I’ll venture to try.
Perhaps if you had been more willing to presume goodwill from your interlocutor, you would have seen that […] i.e., the (sarcastic, yes) suggestion was to employ a psychologist to analyze Srid’s motivations, not to fix some implied mental health issue of tgunnoe’s.
Thank you, that’s exactly how it was meant. I wasn’t even considering the way it was misunderstood when I was writing it. I am sorry if anyone did. I 100%-agree with what you said about assuming good faith.
A private conversation, moderately controversial, with the usual few misunderstandings has just been shut down (“locked”) by one of the participating (newly nominated) moderators.
I disagree with this mode of use of power and wrote the individual so in a DM.
I didn’t intent to unfold a story with my original post, cause this topic here is a concern that would be, with the right moderating mindset, otherwise relatively easy to address in a reconciliatory and integrating fashion.
But not only did this not happen, but we keep collecting data points that unfold and entrench this story.
Disillusioned about the prospects of whether it would happen: I think an outright reform of the moderation team from within is in order, where accountability may only be a starting point.
The predominant attitude seems to be: no successful RFC, no problem. Wow!
I feel this topic is slowly going in circles. All I’m picking up are vague feelings of persecution by people who seem to feel personally attacked by moderating decisions that don’t concern themselves.
I’ve personally been happy with the moderation, though I’ve also been more of a lurker. Good moderation is hard. I thank the people doing this job, not just juggling a lot of difficult communication but constantly having to defend what they do. I get notified for everything in the moderation github repo and its always the same people concern trolling the decisions made.
If you really think you have found some better way to do moderation write it down in an RFC. Saying they should reform from “within” feels like a lazy way to get the responsibility of coming up with the better solution out of your own hands; you can keep vaguely gesturing at “accountability” undermining the moderation in the process without having to do the hard work of figuring out how better moderation would work in practice.
I defer to @expipiplus1 excellent post earlier in this thread that was unfortunately hidden that links some really good articles around moderation and community safety.
Well, yes and no.
But “laziness” is really just a counterfactual supposition.
Please take note, for example that I was coauthor of the Mod Team constituting RFC.
So I have experienced how RFC processes rarely go beyond the smallest common denominator.
Thus it is easy to see how such an RFC would only have the slightest chance of success, if is being proposed consensually, i.e. the current team agrees to the proposition that not all is right and that it is actually worth changing some things.
We’ll probably see after a couple of days after this discussion ebbs what, if any, points of critique (among all the controversy) the mod team would be interested in considering more closely.
Then is the time to write such RFC, if any. And of course I won’t duck away in participating (even actively, if desired).
I’ve thought more about the need of protecting the identity of the moderated individual.
If we take a step back, likely not even the current git history backed process exposing Personally Identifiable Information may hold the test of applicable personal data protection laws.
I’m no expert on this subject, but I’d assume neively that I could request to the NixOS Foundations’s data protection officer to erase any entry with personal identifiable information not only from the repository, but also from the git history under penalty of sanctions.
Typically, in such cases, all Personally Identifiable Imformation (PII), such as the GH handle, would be anonymized in public and only a private mapping would be held by the mod team to the respective GH and Discourse handles.
This not only would ensure the NixOS Foundations’s compliance with aplicable laws beyond any doubt, but it also would remove the one obstacle that has been cited in this thread towards providing more context about a decision in the moderation log.
Moreover, I find it somehow important that, alongside the decision for a ban, also the voice of the accused is ritually given (some) space within the same record.
Kind regards to everyone who has read through this thread until here. I hope we can all agree that we can do better. 
I would love to read @expipiplus1 links.
Ah!, i’ve just been told that i can hit a button an unhide the posts…
an interesting forum configuration.
I’d like to share a blog post by a person that, like me, has had first hand insight into the moderation process: Why Did NixOS Mods Ban Srid? – Sridhar Ratnakumar (please kindly ignore the provocative catch title for once 
)
If this forum may suggest that there’s absolutely no room for improvement, the interested reader may find it useful background information to help navigate their judgment in this intransparent affair.
Yes I personally am grateful you posted that @blaggacao . I am still deliberating with myself how to proceed in all of this. There seems to be some bad karma here when it comes to these issues: Code of Conduct, moderation team, political attitudes. Maybe not surprising with politics involved, but still…
I read the little bit of stuff that I could get from Srid thanks to your post.
I intellectually fail to grasp what exactly he was suspended for. Was it a picture of a steak he cooked due to his diet? Or a link to a bit of political content outside this forum? Or was it sharing controversial viewpoints on debates brought up by others (!!!) on this platform? I don’t really get it …
Yet after saying this, and having engaged in these controversial issues myself for a short time on this forum, I can also see why so many people appear to be in love with Codes of Conduct and proactive moderation. All these debates tear people down on an emotional level (including me sometimes btw), they take up a lot of energy that could otherwise be spend on making things (much more gratifying I think), and they have a tendency of leaving all sides frustrated.
I am a bit at a loss on what to make of all of this to be honest.
He was suspended for not doing what mods asked him to do.
They asked him to change behavior around all those things you mention, but based on his account and the mods’ account it seems they agree that the suspension happened after Srid said that he’d only obey the mods if they did something he wanted (i.e., turn the things he was being asked to do into universal rules that they would prosecute against everyone equally).
The moderator team has authority. If authorities only asked you to do things that you were willing to do out of your own desire, there would be no need for them. It follows that under some circumstances an authority can be expected to ask people to do things that they don’t agree with. If people treat such requests as optional, or the opening to some sort of negotiation, again the moderators are not really doing anything special—any one of us can make a not-backed-by-power appeal to someone else in the community.
If you agree that moderators should exist and do something that makes them different from other members of a community, it therefore follows that you should expect those moderators to occasionally ask people to do things that those people don’t agree with, and that those people should comply or face the consequences.
If that sounds horribly authoritarian to you—it is authoritarian! Authority is the governance model we have. Want to start a constitutional democracy with separation of powers and legislation and judicial review and all that good stuff? Write the constitution and get the community to agree to it, or start your own community with that as a founding document and see who joins you. That’s massively difficult work, but it’s something you could do.
If you think you are willing to put up with authoritarian governance but think that the authorities made the wrong call in suspending Srid after he failed to comply with their requests, I say you don’t understand authoritarian governance.
And if you think that the authorities should not have asked Srid what they did, at last there is a concrete topic of conversation that I think might be productive. It’s not about what he was suspended for. It’s not about oversight, transparency, or accountability. And it’s definitely not about ‘keeping politics out of tech’ or any such nonsense. It’s about your politics not agreeing with the mods’ politics on this specific issue, and whether you can convince other humans to change their politics to align more closely with yours (or, perhaps, be open to being convinced to change your politics to align more closely with theirs, if that’s not too rich of a fantasy to entertain).
That is a starch misrepresentation of an acceptable governance model for our shared community, almost im every sentence. People don’t “sign up for”, people “participate”.
For that participation to be safe, we must be reasonably protected from arbitrary (mis)use of authority. Full stop.
I’m not talking about what ought to be. I’m simply describing what is. Feel free to correct any specific factual claim you think I got wrong. (I have no idea what ‘People don’t “sign up for”, people “participate”’ is meant to refer to.)
For the record, this is the sort of attitude I warned about years ago. The ones so eager to rule are rarely the most fit to.
But I don’t share your enthusiasm for authoritarianism, so I’ll just reiterate what I said back then and leave it be. If that’s the direction the community wants to go, so be it. But is it though? Was this ever for or about the Nix community?
Even at the time the intial conversation was happening we were only ever talking about protecting a small contigent within the community that, I must assume by their silo-building actions, believes that their socio-political outlook is the only acceptable one.
That’s how I define radicalism, personally, but to each his own.