+1 to the ad hominem guideline. I've been thinking quite a lot about technical moderation/filtering versus social moderation after the fact. This is a good example of something where I think technical moderation is appropriate.
I would suggest a simpler word choice than "mendacious". Maybe "you are lying" or "why do you keep posting made up nonsense". Kenn On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:19 AM Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey D&I peeps, > > I've added a point to the moderation guidelines: > > Problem: *"Post contains ad hominem unnecessarily used to support an > argument. (For example "Your claim is mendacious.")"* > > Desired result for the community: *"Help all participants collaborate in a > constructive manner, while still allowing substantive disagreement."* > > Moderation comment: > > *"The phrase "<phrase>"* > > *...contains an inappropriate attack on one or more fellow discussion > participants. Please remove or reformulate the phrase in your e-mail and > resend your comments. For example, if you wrote "Your claim is mendacious" > you could replace that phrase with "Your claim is false" or simply delete > it."* > > Your thoughts? > > Best, > Myrle > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 12:26 PM Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > I'm not detecting a strong preference from the group here. Naomi is > > strongly in favor of the provision. Patricia is strongly against it, > > Awasum is against it. > > > > I'm going to remove this moderation guideline. This can be changed again > > if we can detect a pattern of abuse or that we'd like to put a stop to or > > something else happens that causes the community to develop their opinion > > further. I would like us to be flexible in growing our moderation > > guidelines as we learn each other's preferences and develop our > > understanding of how we want to interact as a community. > > > > Best, > > Myrle > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:26 PM Awasum Yannick <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I prefer a situation where anyone call out poor behaviour as they arise > >> here...onsite..in public. I will prefer we allow people to make their > >> opinions known even if at times they might be off topic or not > appropriate > >> for some people. > >> > >> We should rather call out bad behaviour here. Even if there becomes a > need > >> to suspend or put somebody under moderation, this action should not > >> persist > >> for too long (moderate/suspend someone for 30 days and then allow them > to > >> post without moderation and see if the VERY bad behaviour continues). > >> > >> I say this because I believe that at times chaos is a pathway to growth. > >> {The next few sentences might be off topic to this thread but I will > just > >> go ahead and say them.} > >> > >> Look at the thread which brought about the creation of this D&I > committee > >> for example. I mean the one on ComDev. It was chaotic and went on for > >> weeks > >> but the outcome was that the Apache Community learnt that we had a > >> diversity problem and that action was needed and was taken. > >> > >> I dont know about you all but the other chaotic discussion here > >> surrounding > >> Outreachy and "Pay for Development" or not was an educational experience > >> for me. I learnt how to argue, learnt English, learnt about the Apache > >> way. > >> it was not pretty at times but I think humans are resilient enough to > >> handle some of these issues. We came out of it and are now moving into > the > >> implementation phase of things. I think the discussions we had during > that > >> time was worth it. Some eggs might have been broken but overall, I will > >> say > >> freedom for people to express themselves is a good thing and we should > >> maintain it. > >> > >> In concluding, I will say, we should not actively police this mailing > list > >> with rules and regulations but to socially, diplomatically and politely > >> call out bad behaviour preferably in private. people do want to do good > >> and > >> be good. > >> > >> > >> Thanks. > >> Awasum > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:36 PM Naomi S <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > I want the moderation team to be a team of people trusted by the VP > D&I > >> to > >> > make the call re who is trolling or not. that is subjective, and it > is, > >> for > >> > sure, going to come down to shared values. but it's important for this > >> > initiative that we can assert a coherent set of shared values > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 19:33, Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:25 PM Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I don't think there is a way, because one person's troll may be > >> another > >> > > > person's sincerely held and strongly expressed opinion. > >> > > > > >> > > > My preference would be to drop it completely. The CoC already > covers > >> > the > >> > > > cases that I think should be restricted. We are all adults here. > If > >> > > > someone wants to make the rest of the mailing list participants > >> think > >> > > > they are rude and inconsiderate, they should be let do so. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > I'd like to hear what the rest of the committee prefers. I can > accept > >> > > either approach. > >> > > > >> > > The options are: > >> > > 1.) Continue to block trolling. Either use the existing wording or > >> look > >> > > for a better wording. > >> > > 2.) Not block trolling in technical moderation, but fall back to > >> social > >> > > moderation. Some trolling may fall under other rules (for example, > >> list > >> > > relevance). > >> > > > >> > > Best Regards, > >> > > Myrle > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
