Hi Mike,
On 06/04/14 16:09, Michael Connor wrote:
> I’d err on the side of caution. If people are willing to engage in a
> healthy, civil manner, I’m sure they’d be willing to re-submit a post
> that conforms to the CPG. If they’re not willing be civil and
> constructive, they should not be given a platform here. The Web has
> plenty of places people can vent without restriction.
That rather assumes that their venting is of no concern to us, so it
doesn't matter where they do it as long as it's not here. I don't think
that's true in this case.
>>> A large number of these posts are, in my opinion, a direct
>>> violation of the requirement to keep support for exclusionary
>>> practices out of Mozilla spaces as enshrined in the Community
>>> Participation Guidelines [1],
>>
>> Can you walk me through how you reach that conclusion?
>
> * I don’t believe it’s ever acceptable under the CPG to advocate
> against LGBT marriage rights.
Given that almost every post from anyone on this topic has started with
or contains a "creds" statement ("Disclaimer: I support gay marriage")
or ("I support traditional marriage"), that understanding of the
guidelines would have the effect of excluding most of the current set of
angry people but almost none of the previous set. I really don't think
"Na na na, we're not listening" is a good message to be sending at this
point. And that's what taking this view would send.
> * I’d explicitly drop posts using any
> of the common “attack” tactics:
> ** Comparisons to pedophilia
Check.
> ** Complaining about the “gay/queer/homosexual agenda”
So you think a group in society can have a large number of campaigning
organizations and a set of political goals, without having an agenda?
> ** Arguing the
> right of the majority to dictate to the minority
I don't think that as a political belief this is sufficiently beyond the
pale to discard someone's comment because of it.
> ** Toxic comparisons
> like Mao/Stalin against those who believe differently
Check.
> * I think it’s 100% on board to defend Brendan’s right to his
> beliefs.
>
> * I think it’s 100% out of line to debate/defend the
> correctness of Brendan’s beliefs
I think it would be very unwise for any Mozillian to engage with posters
in governance on that second topic. And I would probably email them to
tell them that, if they did start. But saying that everyone has to go
back and rewrite their post to be 100% First Amendment with no
assertions of a view on the issue itself seems unreasonable, and more
likely to generate more hostility than it is to allow us to engage people.
Sometimes listening is painful, in that you hear things you don't
particularly want to hear. At Mozilla, we're "open until it hurts". I
think we should, at the current moment, take the same attitude to listening.
> I’m 100% fine with engaging with angry people, if they are civil, and
> willing to constructively engage. I’d hope that you can see the
> difference between constructive questioning and emotional attacks.
I don't think we'll find out who's interested in constructively engaging
until we engage with them. Hence my "one top-level post" policy for
people to make their point. I am being significantly more strict on replies.
> I’ll note that the people getting direct responses tend to be the
> people who are civil, rather than hateful. I’m happy to engage with
> individuals who are willing to engage in a civil way. I’ve been
> trying to do that where I have time.
Thank you for your help :-)
I will try and write a moderation response which I can send to people
whose posts I'm refusing, to explain. At the moment, they are just going
in the bin.
Gerv
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
